Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Lee Harvey Oswald

2010-08-12T22:46:12Z

CVeritas: indented quote from "James Dobson"; noted shooting of Dallas Officer J.D. Tippit

'''Lee Harvey Oswald''' was born on October 18, 1939, in [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]]. He was held responsible as the sole assassin of [[President]] [[John F. Kennedy]] in [[Dallas]], [[Texas]] on November 22, 1963, by the [[Warren Commission]], although the assassination has become a popular target for conspiracy theorists.

Oswald was murdered in front of live [[television]] cameras on November 24, 1963, by [[Dallas]] nightclub owner [[Jack Ruby]].

JFK conspiracy theories usually gloss over Oswald's marriage to the daughter of a KGB colonel. She was allowed to marry him and they were allowed to emigrate, but the KGB had no plans for him? Occam's razor could use a good stropping here.[http://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Liberal-Victims-Assault-America/dp/030735346X/]

==The Most Rejected Man of His Time==
[[James Dobson]] wrote a short story concerning the reason why Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy. It reads as follows:

: "He began his life with all the classic handicaps and disadvantages. His mother was a dominating woman who found it difficult to [[love]] anyone. She gave him no affection, no training and no [[discipline]] during his early years.

: "When he was 13, a school psychologist commented that he probably didn't even know the meaning of the word "love." During [[adolescence]], the girls would have nothing to do with him and he fought with the boys.

: "After failing at every pursuit, including a stint in the [[United States Marine Corps]], he fled the country. He married a Russian girl, but she also began to hold him in contempt. She could outfight him, and she learned to bully him. Finally, she forced him to leave.

: "After days of loneliness, he went home, fell on his knees and literally begged her to take him back. He wept at her feet, but she laughed at him and made fun of his sexual impotency in front of a friend. Finally, he pleaded no more. No one wanted him. No one had ever wanted him. He was perhaps the most rejected man of his time.

: "The next day, he was a strangely different man. He arose, went to the garage, and took down a rifle he had hidden there. He carried it with him to his newly acquired job at a book-storage building. And from a window on the sixth floor of that building, shortly after noon, November 22, 1963, he sent two shells crashing into the head of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

: "Lee Harvey Oswald, the rejected, unlovable failure, killed the man who, more than any other person on earth -- embodied all the success, beauty, wealth, and family affection which Oswald lacked. In firing that rifle, he utilized the one skill he had learned in his entire, miserable lifetime.

Also on November 22, 1963, someone had shot a Dallas policeman, Officer J.D. Tippit, using a handgun, and Oswald was accused of that shooting as well. Evidence revealed that Oswald had received both the rifle and a handgun, through mail-order purchase, and both arrived on the same day.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Oswald, Lee Harvey}}
[[Category:Assassins]]

Leviticus 18

2010-07-19T13:52:29Z

CVeritas: /* Lev. 18:22 and 20:13: Male homosex */ copyedit: put italics; was/were; links

''Main page [[Leviticus]]''

'''Leviticus 18''' almost entirely consists of various laws on sexual relations, primarily as concerns illicit partners. The human author of Leviticus is evidenced herein as being Moses (Lv. 1:1; 7:37-38; 14:1-2; 27:34), and it provides covenantal “statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai given in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses” (Lv 26:46). Such statements oppose the Documentary Hypothesis of authorship.<ref>The 'Documentary Source Hypothesis' http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref> Yet as the pagan nations were judged for disobeying the moral laws contained herein, (Lv. 18:24,27,28) and as the actions and laws of God established both the superior God and standard, (Dt. 4:7,8) the moral laws are seen as universally applying.

==Overview==

Christians generally have recognized the separation of [[Mosaic Law|Old Testament law]] into moral, civil/judicial and ceremonial/typological categories.<ref>[The Bible As Law, Gerald R. Thompson http://www.lonang.com/foundation/1/f17.htm]</ref><ref>Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1977), p. 214. Bahnsen points out that the early third century church document Didascalia Apostolorum clearly distinguished between the Decalogue and the temporary ceremonies.</ref><ref>http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/law.htm</ref> Orthodox Jews in particular consider the latter to be binding, where possible, and as interpreted, though moral law is usually regarded by religious Jews as being the more emphasized and universally applicable. Typically, “Whenever Judaism entered into relations with other nations and religions, the moral laws were accentuated, and the ceremonial laws were put into the background.”<ref>Ceremonies and the ceremonial law, Kaufmann Kohler</ref> The most prevalent Christian position is that literal obedience to the ceremonial laws is not enjoined, though faith and works in accordance with their principal is, (1Cor. 5:7; 2Cor. 7:1), while literal obedience to basic moral laws is required, as well as to behave in accordance to principles behind civil and judicial laws, as understood under the [[New Testament.]]<ref>John Gill, Mt. 5:17; Col. 2:16</ref>

Leviticus as a whole is basically divided into three basic sections. The first of which is often called the Priestly Code. (1-16,25) in which are given ordinances regarding the Aaronic priesthood and its consecration and duties, laws of sacrifices and liturgical seasons, diet, and cleanliness. The second section is usually termed The Holiness Code. (18-26) which first deals with both basic moral laws which mainly forbid idolatry and illicit sexual partners. It is in the light of such foundational laws that we most basically understand how to obey, "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:18) In addition, various culturally applied civil and judicial laws are given, which are based on foundational moral principles but which usually require the particular culture of Israel at that time for their full literal obedience, though laws based upon their principles are seen to be in force today.<ref>Leviticus An Economic Commentary, by Gary North http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gnlv.pdf</ref>

===Cultural factors===

Historical background is an important consideration in interpreting Scripture,<ref>Hermeneutics - A Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation, By Darryl M. Erkel; V. The Basics of Bible Interpretation http://www.theologue.org/HERMENEUTICS-DMERKEL.html</ref> and which may be observed to have affected the institution of Levitical laws in all its categories, as well as laws given elsewhere. Israel was surrounded by idolatry, and for both practical and illustrative purposes their negative examples were often invoked as an example of how not to be, and of the punishment that such iniquities incurred. Revisionist writers seek to use these aspects to negate the universal scope and transcendence of Biblical laws against homosexual intercourse.<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref>

While collectively all Old Testament laws established a higher standard that made Israel distinctive, and certain laws directly target specific pagan practices, the often repeated admonition to the people of God not to be like pagans is usually in the immediate context of moral laws, or violations thereof, even in the New Testament (Lv. 18:24,27,28; 20:22,23; Dt. 6:14-18; 8:19,20; 11:28; 12:31; 18:9-12; 1Ki. 14:24; 2Ki. 16:3, 2Ki. 16:3; 17:8-12; 21:2; 1Chrn. 5.25; 2Chrn. 36:14; Jer. 7:6,9; Ezek. 16:50; 23:49; Eph. 4:17-19; 1Pet. 4:3,4). The predominant laws in this moral category are against formal idolatry and sexual immorality, and include certain practices referred to in the second category of derivative culturally applied laws, such as against killing children as an offering to their false gods, or against temple prostitution.

===Basic moral laws===

This category deals with basic moral actions and attitudes, such as against basic idolatry, murder, adultery, etc., and are based upon foundational moral principles, and establish moral separation. Idolatry is the mother of all deliberate sin, and though the formal institution of many of these laws may have been occasioned by formal contemporary pagan idolatry, such proscribed practices in this section are a direct expression of idolatry by nature, not simply a mere accompaniment, and both the practices and their prohibitions are literally applicable to all cultures. Yet the exact penalties for violations of such may be culture dependent. Laws against such things as child sacrifice to Molech are not simply restricted to the deity of the culture that occasioned it, but apply to any false god. Fathers and mothers are to be overall honored (and act honorably), murder is murder, and the injunctions against sex with an illicit partner are universal and transcendent from the time of their enactment. A thorough examination of laws in Lev. 18 yields only v. 19 (laying with one's wife during menstruation) as the only law that might belong outside purely moral laws.

Adam Clarke comments,

The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism.<ref>Clarke, Gal. 5:13</ref>

Noted commentator Albert Barnes states

The laws of the Jews are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral laws are such as grow out of the nature of things, and which cannot, therefore, be changed - such as the duty of loving God and his creatures. These cannot be abolished, as it can never be made right to hate God, or to hate our fellow-men. Of this kind are the [[Ten Commandments]], and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded. The ceremonial laws are such as are appointed to meet certain states of society, or to regulate the religious rites and ceremonies of a people. These can be changed when circumstances are changed, and yet the moral law must be untouched. A general in an army may command his soldiers to appear sometimes in a red coat and sometimes in blue or in yellow. This would be a ceremonial law, and might be changed as he pleased. The duty of obeying him, and of being faithful to his country, could not be changed. <ref>Albert Barnes, (Mt. 5:18)</ref>

===Judicial and civil laws===

A second category are termed judicial or civil laws, which are also part of moral separation. These contain moral civil laws and judicial penalties, but require the context of a certain type of culture for their literal application, and their penalties may be specifically mandated only for the theocracy of Israel. However, these are usually easily modified in accordance with their intent to be applicable today. A society may not have flat roofs where people regularly sleep and thus need fences, but they may have apartment building which require fire escapes. Or it may not need laws penalizing being gored by an ox, but it may need such for being struck by a snowmobile. In addition to such just laws by contemporary authorities, (Rm. :13-17; 1Pt. 2:13,16) obedience in accordance with the principle behind them is enjoined today (i.e., you may not need to help your brother lift up his donkey, (Dt. 3:4,5) but you should help him change his tire)

===Ceremonial laws===

In contrast to laws regarding such things as illicit sexual partners are laws in the third section which are termed ceremonial laws. These may be seen as based upon the principle of separation. (Gn. 1:6) These laws deal with the sacrificial system, and priestly garments, the liturgical calendar, or merely touching, tasting, or handling unclean things or persons and related washings. (Lv. 11-15; Col. 2:16,17,21) As a class these find their fulfillment in Christ and realities wrought by Him under the new covenant. Literal obedience to ceremonial laws is not enjoined upon Christians, but faith and obedience according to the spiritual principle behind them is. (2Cor. 3) Christians do not need to use unleavened bread in the Lord's supper, but are exhorted to eliminate the “leaven of the Pharisees. (Lk. 12:1; 1Cor. 5:8)<ref>John Gill, Mt. 5:17</ref>

More categorically controversial are certain laws which deal with blood (Lv. 18:19; 20:18; 17:14) and the 7th day or the Sabbath, (Exo 31:14-15) and even laws which forbid cutting or printing marks on one's flesh, or strange haircuts, (Lev. 19:26,27) sometimes referred to as “culturally applied laws,”<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html Does Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Flat-Out Condemn Homosexuality?. J. P Holding]</ref>

In comparison, while idolatry or murder, sex with the wrong person (first category) is unconditionally wrong in any context, regardless of motive, and using a flat roof as a living room without a fence (second category) can be seen as immoral (like driving recklessly today), yet a grove of trees near a church (third category), or how one shaves his beard, or eating pork are seen as essentially amoral practices, only conditionally wrong as part of idolatry, even though certain things like unnecessary mutilation of one's flesh (Lv. 19:28) may be a sign of demonic influence. For Christians this aspect of ceremonial law falls into the area of "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thes. 5:22), akin to wearing the Hindu Tilakum. Some make the same argument regarding holidays like Halloween.<ref>Halloween Origins and Customs http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/halloween.html</ref>

"A parent might permit his children to have 50 different dresses at different times, and love them equally in all. The dress is a mere matter of ceremony, and may be changed. The child, in all these garments, is bound to love and obey his father. This is a moral law, and cannot be changed. So the laws of the Jews. Those designed to regulate mere matters of ceremony and rites of worship might be changed. Those requiring love and obedience to God and love to people could not be changed, and Christ did not attempt it, Mat. 19:19; 22:37-39; Lk. 10:27; Rom. 13:9.

The ceremonial law was fulfilled by the coming of Christ: the shadow was lost in the substance, and ceased to be binding. The moral law was confirmed and unchanged.
<ref>Albert Barnes, (Mt. 5:18)</ref>

== Chapter 18 ==

Laws in this chapter are prefaced with the admonition, "After the doings [H4639] of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings [H4639] of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. [H2708] " (Lv. 18:3) Also Lev 18:30: "Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, [H2708] that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs [H2708], which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." And in Lev 20:23: "And ye shall not walk in the manners [H2708] of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."

The word for “doings” ma‛ăśeh [H4639] here is unique to Leviticus, and refers to works, as in Ps. 106:35, and additionally Israel is forbidden to follow after pagan ordinances (chûqqâh [H2708]), these being laws or statutes, indicating both general as well as religious practices are in view, the latter being made obvious as child sacrifice to Molech (v. 21), this being contrary to foundational law prohibiting murder.

This chapter begins with “The LORD spake unto Moses”, which usually prefaces the beginning of a chapter and sometimes a subsection, as a fuller outline will show. This is not said again until Lv. 19:1. In addition, Lv. 18:24-30 closes this chapter with a uniquely repetitious series of solemn warnings, being given directly after its list of sins, stating that these “abominations” (tô‛êbah,” the “abominable” word used more often to denote violations of immutable rather than ceremonial laws) are what caused the terminal judgment upon the inhabitants whom Israel was to conquer. Though not as extensive, such warnings or statements are also seen in such texts as Lv. 18:30; 20:22,23; Dt. 9:4,5; 12:30,31; 18:12; 1Kg. 14:24; 16:3, 2Ki. 17:34; Jer. 10:3, but which are not directly seen after laws simply regarding unclean foods and ritual uncleanness.

*18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
*2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
*3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
*4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
*5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
*6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
*7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
*8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
*9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
*10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
*11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
*12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
*13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
*14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
*15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
*16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
*17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
*18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
*19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
*20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
*21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
*22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
*23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
*24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
*25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
*26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
*27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
*28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
*29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
*30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

====Lev. 18:6-17: Incest====

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD." (v. 6)

To "uncover the nakedness" of someone is usually a euphemism for sexual relations (Ezek. 16:8), as it is for "lay with" (as H7901 with H854) someone (Gn. 19:33,34; 26:10; Lv. 18:22; 19:10; 20:11-13,18,20; Num. 5:13,19; Ezek. 23:8), and laws forbidding illicit sexual unions make up most of this chapter, which as a class and sometimes individually find confirmation in the rest of Scripture, from the time of their enactment and sometimes before, as literal sins, including in the New Testament

The primary type of illicit sex unions was that of incest, the prohibited degrees of which are specified from the 7th to the 17th verse. It is noted that incest was used and allowed in more ancient times, as God blessed Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) while he was married to Sarah, his half-sister. Adam Clarke comments, "i.e., his sister by his father, but by a different mother. Some suppose Sarai was the daughter of Haran, and consequently the grand-daughter of Terah: this opinion seems to be founded on Gen_11:29, where Iscah is thought to be the same with Sarai, but the supposition has not a sufficiency of probability to support it." Even if this was the case, as with Eve being “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20), then their immediate offspring would have married each other and had offspring. In addition, in accordance with Genesis 9:1, Noah and his three sons and their wives repopulated the entire world following the great Flood,

The most warranted explanation for this allowance during the Patriarchal age was that the effects of the Fall of man (Gn. 3) were progressive, and the deleterious genetic effects which are often a result of intermarriage between close kin were not realized until much later. In addition, the great ages of the antediluvian peoples enabled a greater age difference between offspring and longer time of marriageability, thus likely reducing other possible negative aspects of such intermarriage. All of which served to greatly increase population, and to provide greater family security. However, as generations reproduced, and solar and cosmic radiation increased after the Noahic Flood (Genesis 6-9), a realization and or increase of chemical and viral mutagens, and DNA replication errors would have resulted in manifest genetic disorders. As the laws of God, who is said to need nothing (Acts 17:25), but who loves righteousness (Ps. 45:7; Heb. 1:9) are to our benefit, then God is seen as protecting His people by enacting universal injunctions against incestuous marriages under Moses.<ref>Thompson and Major, 1987, 7[2]:7)</ref>(conservative est. 1500 years).

Keil and Deitzch comment,

"Sexual intercourse is called uncovering the nakedness of another (Eze_16:36; Eze_23:18). The prohibition relates to both married and unmarried intercourse, though the reference is chiefly to the former (see Lev_18:18; Lev_20:14, Lev_20:17, Lev_20:21)

Intercourse is forbidden (1) with a mother, (2) with a step-mother, (3) with a sister or half-sister, (4) with a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter, (5) with the daughter of a step-mother, (6) with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother, (7) with the wife of an uncle on the father's side, (8) with a daughter-in-law, (9) with a sister-in-law, or brother's wife, (10) with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter, and (11) with two sisters at the same time. No special reference is made to sexual intercourse with (a) a daughter, (b) a full sister, (c) a mother-in-law; the last, however, which is mentioned in Deu_27:23 as an accursed crime, is included here in No. 10, and the second in No. 3, whilst the first, like parricide in Exo_21:15, is not expressly noticed, simply because the crime was regarded as one that never could occur."

It is also noted that "The marriage laws and customs were much more lax among the Gentiles. With the Egyptians it was lawful to marry sisters and half-sisters (Diod. Sic. i. 27), and the licentiousness of the women was very great among them (see at Gen_39:6.).

====Lev. 18:18: Marriage to wife's sister====

A wife to her sister - Thou shalt not marry two sisters at the same time, as Jacob did Rachel and Leah; but there is nothing in this law that rendered it illegal to marry a sister-in-law when her sister was dead; therefore the text says, Thou shalt not take her in her life time, to vex her, alluding probably to the case of the jealousies and vexations which subsisted between Leah and Rachel, and by which the family peace was so often disturbed. Some think that the text may be so understood as also to forbid polygamy.<ref>Adam Clarke</ref>

It is to be noted that Jacob did not plan to marry Rachel, but in an example of poetic justice, he was the victim of a "bait and switch" plan by his cunning uncle Laban,(Gn. 29) brother to Jacob's mother, which indicates such cunning deceit ran in the family, though with Jacob it was to be weeded out.

====Lev. 18:19: sexual relations during menstruation====

Sexual intercourse with a woman possibly after child birth (Lev. 12:2-7) or during her period is forbidden, and the latter is specifically revealed to be a capital crime in Lv. 20:18 (if "cut off" is what is meant, versus "put to death"). In Lev. 15:34 the penalty for laying "with her at all" was only seven days separation, but that "laying" might signify simply sleeping with her, as the previous verses are only concerned with contact with a women having an issue of blood (for which no means of stoppage was indicated).

In any case, the man is held chiefly responsible, as to him this is primarily directed, and would serve to proctect the women. And consistent with other laws,(Dt. 22:23-29) the punishment here presumes consent by both parties.

Clarke comments Lv. 20:13 versus 15:34, "Moses speaks of the act when both the man and woman were acquainted with the situation: in the latter, he speaks of a case where the circumstance was not known till afterwards; at least, so it appears these two places should be understood, so as to be reconciled."<ref>Adam Clarke</ref>

The related controversial aspect of this law is whether it falls into the class of ceremonial laws, and thus is no longer binding for Christians, or whether it belongs to the same class of transcendent moral laws which precede it. In favor of it belonging to the class of ceremonial laws is the nature of the proscribed acts, as unlike other sexual laws in this chapter laws, v. 19 does not deal with forbidden sexual partners, but the condition of the wife. Besides protecting the wife, the key aspect seems to that of touching blood, and in this regard v. 19 would be akin to other ceremonial laws regarding touching something.

Leaning towards moral law is the fact that the sanctity of blood precedes the Mosaic ceremonial dietary laws, as immediately after the flood, while God sanctioned the eating of all meat (Gen 9:3; cf. 1:29), eating it with the blood not drained was strictly forbidden. This was later abundantly confirmed in Leviticus. (Lv. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; 19:26) As the purpose of the law is to save life and not destroy them (cf. Mk. 3:4), such a restriction would not forbid the ingestion of pure blood in such dire circumstances. However, it is a matter of controversy whether blood (as in mainly blood or blood products) is considered a food that would place it in the area of liberty for Christians, (1Tim. 4:3-5) or whether it is forbidden due to its inherent sanctity, perhaps with Acts 15:20 being upheld as part of the Jewish Halakha,<ref>http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/gloss.htm#Halakhah</ref> in addition to causing a possible offense to others.(1Cor. 8,10)<ref>The Chemistry Of The Blood, M.R. DeHaan, M.D. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/05.htm</ref>

Applying this sanctity of blood as relates to Lv. 18:19, many Christians hold that Heb. 13:4 sanctifies all benevolent sexual intercourse between man and wife (male and female), or as affirming their sexual relations in contrast to those which forbid sex in marriage (1Tim. 3:5)<ref>Wesley</ref> Others disagree, perhaps seeing Lev. 18:19 as still applicable out of regard for the sanctity of blood and or the procreative process.<ref>John Gill, Ezek. 22:10; Acts 15:20</ref>

====Lev. 18:20: Adultery ====
"Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."

This is a basic and universally immutable moral law, which is is condemned as far back as Gn. 20.

====Lev. 18:21: Child sacrifice to false gods====

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."

While the name of the false god may be culturally specific, this is clearly an immutable universal moral law, as idols represent anything a person lives for, ultimately finds their security in, or sets their chief affection on. To sacrifice one's offspring to any false god, including a lifestyle, is sin. Spiritually speaking, all Christians are called to forsake the foolish and live, (Prv. 9:6) to be dead to the word and alive to Christ, (Gal. 2:20; 6:14) to surrender themselves entirely as living sacrifices to God, to be made more like Christ. (Rm. 12:1,2; 2Cor. 4)

Keil and Delitzsch comment: "Moloch was an old Canaanitish idol, called by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians Melkarth, Baal-melech, Malcom, and other such names, and related to Baal, a sun-god worshipped, like Kronos and Saturn, by the sacrifice of children. It was represented by a brazen statue, which was hollow and capable of being heated, and formed with a bull's head, and arms stretched out to receive the children to be sacrificed."

Yet they note that Rabbinic commentary and certain theologians hold that, '“causing to pass through the fire” denoted primarily going through the fire without burning, a februation, or purification through fire, by which the children were consecrated to Moloch; a kind of fire-baptism, which preceded the sacrificing, and was performed, particularly in olden time, without actual sacrificing, or slaying and burning."

However, this is doubtful, as the internal evidence seems to indicate that literally sacrificing children was a practice by certain pagan cultures contemporary with Israel, or even by Israel itself. "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:" (Jer 19:5; cf. 2Chr. 16:3; 28:3; 2Ki. 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; Ps. 106:37,38; Jer. 7:31; 32:35; Ezek. 16:20,21,31; 23:39)

While in Gn. 22 Abraham was tested by God to literally sacrifice his son, his only real son of promise (and which may indicate a cultural practice then existed), that was God's prerogative, who prevented it from happening. (Abraham, for his part, reasoned that as God supernaturally enabled the birth of Issac, so He was able to raise him up again: Heb. 11:17-19.) The vow of Jephthah (Judg. 11) is controversial, not only its utterance, but whether it was most literally carried out. In any case, simple historical narratives do not necessarily confer sanction.

====Lev. 18:22 and 20:13: Male homosex====
{{main|Homosexual misinterpretation}}

(Lev 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie [shâkab] with mankind [zâkâr], as with womankind: it is abomination [tô‛êbah] ."

(Lev 20:13) "If a man ['îysh] also lie [shâkab] with mankind [zâkâr], as he lieth [mishkâb] with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [tô‛êbah]: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

While these commands explicitly condemn homosexual intercourse between males and are presented as general commands given to all Israel, relatively recently these have become the subject of an intense attack by pro-homosex [[polemicist]]s. While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosexual intercourse.

Most of these prohomosex writers usually first assert that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' for ''abomination'', which describes male sex with men here, does not usually signify something inherently evil, like adultery or theft, but something which is ceremonially unclean for Jews, such as the dietary laws. (Lv. 11).<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref> <ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72.</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73, 85.</ref><ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46-47, http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html</ref> The Hebrew word “zimmâh” (Lv. 19:29) is instead sometimes suggested as the word which would have been used if the prohibitions, of Lv. 18:22, were not intrinsically evil.

Such revisionists generally conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosexual intercourse only prohibit pagan temple prostitution, or were only concerned with the waste of sperm, though even noted prohomosex author Robin Scroggs thinks the latter explanations to be conjecture which are best not to speculate about,<ref>''The New Testament and Homosexuality'', p. 73.</ref> rather than being universal and transcendent injunctions, such as the other laws against illicit partners are.

An attempt is also made to create a division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, which is supposed to render the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosex in that type of idolatrous context.

Examining the first basis for their claim manifests that this argument is not substantiated by the original language, as the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'' is actually not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as being abominable for Israel, (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18) while it is the word most often used in denoting grave moral ''abominations'', including clearly universally sinful practices. (Dt. 7:25; 18:9-12 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7; 2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 1:13; 44:19; Jer. 7:10; 32:35) And which includes illicit sexual unions. (Dt. 24:2-4; 1Kg. 14:24; 2Ki. 16:3; 21:2,11; Ezek. 16:22,58; 18:10-13; 22:11; 33:26) Collectively, it is also used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. (Lv. 18:27-30) In contrast, the word most used, and only used for ceremonial violations, is “sheqets” (Leviticus 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then “shâqats,” from which it is derived, which is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations (Leviticus 11:11,13,43; 20:25; Dt. 7:26; Prv. 22:24).

As regards zimmâh, unlike ''tōʻēḇā'', this word is not not often used for specific sexual sins, but is generally seen in reference to sexual "lewdness" (Jdg. 20:6; Jer.13:27, Eze. 16:43, 58; 22:9; 23:21,27,29,35,48-49; Eze. 24:13; Hos. 6:9). It often is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universal sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ). Yet, it is not always used for all universal sexual sins, and the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of its nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such.

In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there are practices which evidently are a direct expression of formal idolatry, such as temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually. <ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246.</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfill the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited in the N.T. (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosexual intercourse clearly fit in this category by type,<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)

Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex.

As part of extensive substantive documentation evidencing that the prohibitions against homosexual intercourse are immutable and universal,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> scholar Robert A. H. Gagnon,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html</ref> provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.

*Part of an interconnected Old Testament witness
*Grouped with incest, adultery, and bestiality. There is no evidence to suggest that ancient Israelite society, acting in fidelity to Yahweh, would ever have approved of any form of homosexual practice.
*A first-tier sexual offense. Male homosexual practice is listed among first- tier sexual offenses in Lev 20:10-16, which incur a capital sentence.
*Framed absolutely. Like the prohibitions of incest and adultery, it takes in all acts of intercourse of the type specified, not merely intentionally oppressive or coercive forms.
*Contains the marks of moral impurity. Contrary to those who dismiss these prohibitions as antiquated ritual purity law, the prohibition bears the marks of a moral purity issue. Unlike impurity of a merely ritual sort (e.g., corpse impurity, genital discharges, scale disease), moral impurities such as the prohibitions of incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, and bestiality are not (a) contagious through physical contact and (b) rectified by ritual bathing; moreover, (c) moral impurities concern only intentional acts. They also do not involve merely an exchange of fluid (as does menstrual impurity)
*Adopts a creation/nature model. The prohibition leads the hearer back to a foundational creation/nature model (cf. also the prohibition of bestiality as illicit "mixing" of creation boundaries)
*Appropriated by the New Testament. The term ''arsenokoitai'' ("men who lie with a male") in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is formulated from the [[Septuagint]] translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which refers to not 'lying' (koite) with a 'male' (arsen). Paul's critique of homosexual relations in Romans 1:24-27 also echoes Lev 18 and 20 by using two terms that appear in Septuagint translation of these chapters: ''akatharsia'' ("uncleanness, impurity" in Romans 1:24 and Lev 18:19; 20:21, 25) and ''aschemosune'' ("indecency, indecent exposure" in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21). <ref>Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice? http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf</ref>

As regards the attempts to negate the universality and transcendence of v. 22 by creating a divisional break from universal laws to culturally-bound laws, beginning in v. 21 due to the culturally specific aspect of child sacrifice to Molech, this also cannot be established, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistent with the prohomosex hermeneutic behind their attempt, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery). While types of laws are sometimes grouped together, Biblical laws codes as a whole are not strict categories of laws, but types are more manifest by their nature and foundational principals.

Moreover, when homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“with dogs” likely referring to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practices as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality." <ref>Greg Bahnsen p 45</ref> Though some argue that there is no evidence to suggest these texts refer to Canaanite cultic practices<ref>Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate, by Calvin Smith http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_revisited.pdf</ref>

D. Sherwin Bailey, whose primary revisionary work seeking to justify homosex is looked to by succeeding prohomosex polemicists, himself stated, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion."<ref>Bailey, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition p. 30.</ref>

Another grammatical argument to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context, is one that sees a radical significance in the use of zakhar [Strong's, H2145] the Hebrew word normally translated male/males, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138]

However, extensive examination reveals that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are primarily used to differentiate between males and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only special significance it provides. These word provide a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile.

Some prohomosex polemicists argue that Lev. 20:13 only prohibits actual male intercourse, while also not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93; by Steven Greenberg</ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, Palestinian Judaism Scroggs</ref>

However, as v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality in the next verse is, in principle its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.

More psychological attempts seeking to make these Levitical laws motive or disposition dependent. However motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13)</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34).

====Lev. 18:23: Bestiality====

"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."

"A female one, as Aben Ezra notes, as a mare, cow, or ewe, or any other beast, small or great, as Ben Gersom, or whether tame or wild, as Maimonides;<ref> Hilchot Issure Biah, c. 1. sect. 16. (c) Geograph. l. 17. p. 551. (d) De Animal. l. 7. c. 19. (e) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 46. (f) Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 2. c. 53. col. 642.</ref> and even fowls are comprehended, as the same writers observe:

"'It is confusion'"; a mixing of the seed of man and beast together, a blending of different kinds of creatures, a perverting the order of nature, and introducing the utmost confusion of beings, from whence monsters in nature may arise.<ref>John Gill</ref>

"Lying with animals was connected in Egypt with the worship of the goat; at Mendes especially, where the women lay down before he-goats (Herodotus, 2, 46; Strabo, 17, p. 802). Aelian (nat. an. vii. 19) relates an account of the crime being also committed with a dog in Rome; and according to Sonnini, R. 11, p. 330."<ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>

The venerable Matthew Henry comments

"A law against unnatural lusts, sodomy and bestiality, sins not to be named nor thought of without the utmost abhorrence imaginable, Lev. 18:22, Lev. 18:23. Other sins level men with the beasts, but these sink them much lower. That ever there should have been occasion for the making of these laws, and that since they are published they should ever have been broken, is the perpetual reproach and scandal of human nature; and the giving of men up to these vile affections was frequently the punishment of their idolatries; so the apostle shows, Rom. 1:24."

Gagnon notes,

The only form of consensual sexual behavior that was regarded by ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity as more egregious than same-sex intercourse was bestiality. It is no accident that bestiality receives even less attention in the Bible than same-sex intercourse—it is mentioned only in Exod 22:19; Lev 18:23 and 20:15-16; and Deut 27:21<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ZenitInterview.htm</ref>

=====Punishments=====

Related to Lv. 18 are punishments for these crime in Lv. 20. The terms used in that chapter for capital punishment are.

*1. the clear command to "put to death" (Lev. 20:2,10-13,15,16,27; cf Lv. 19:20; 24:16,17,21,29) which is most often used for universal immutable grave sins, (Ex. 21:15-17,29) and not for ceremonial/purity laws, except for unholy presumption, (Ex. 19:12; Num. 1:51; 3:38) and for breaking the Sabbath; (Ex. 31:14,15; 35:2; Num. 15:35)

*2. "cut off", (Lv. 20:17,18) which is used to prescribe the punishment for ritual purity offenses, (Gn. 17:14; Ex. 12:15,19; 30:33; Lv. 7:20,21,25-27; 17:4,9,14; 19:8; 22:3; 23:29; etc.) but is rarely used by itself for grave moral sins, though it is sometimes used for the same sins which "put to death" is stipulated for, including all of Lv. 18 (v. 29)

*3. "his blood [shall be] upon them (or him)", (Lv. 20:9,11-13; 16,27; Josh. 2:19; 1Ki. 2:27; Ezek. 18:13; 33:4,5)

*4. "burnt with fire", (Lv. 20:14; cf. Lv. 21:9), for taking a wife with her mother, which sentence Joshua 7:15,25 indicates is burning after death by stoning.

*5. "he shall bear his iniquity" (Lv. 20:17) for consensual incest with one's sister, which meant death (cf. Dt. 27:22; Ezek. 22:11; 2Sam. 13:12)

Stoning the law breakers by the community was the prescribed mode of death, as seen in Lev. 20:2,27; 24:14,23; Num.15:35,36; Dt.13:10,11; 17:5-7; 21:21; Act. 7:58,7:59

This list of capital punishments is by no means complete, (cf. Ex. 21; Lv. 24; Dt. 27) nor is the death penalty mentioned more than once for every every capital crime in the Bible, especially as "cursed" in Dt. 27:15-26 may not always signify a command to execute the offender.

The reason for more mentions of the death penalty for one sin over another is not necessarily due to its degree of wickedness, but as the law itself was "added because of transgressions", (Gal. 3:19) the condemnation of the most prevalent sins and their penalty is repeated most often, with the chief one, idolatry, being addressed over 100 times, and illicit heterosexual sex dozens of times, while rarer ones such as bestiality and extreme forms of incest are rarely mentioned.

Keil and Deitzch comment,

Sins mentioned under Nos. 1 [mother], 2 [stepmom], 3 [sister; half sister], 8 [daughter-in-law], and 10 [with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter] were to be followed by the death or extermination of the criminals (Lev_20:11-12, Lev_20:14, Lev_20:17), on account of their being accursed crimes (Deu_23:1; Deu_27:20, Deu_27:22-23). On the other hand, the only threat held out in the case of the connection mentioned under Nos. 6 [with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother], 7 [wife of an uncle on the father's side], and 9 [sister-in-law, or brother's wife], was that those who committed such crimes should bear their iniquity, or die childless (Lev_20:19-21). The cases noticed under Nos. 4 [granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter] and 5 [daughter of a step-mother] are passed over in ch. 20, though they no doubt belonged to the crimes which were to be punished with death, and No. 11 [two sisters at the same time], for which no punishment was fixed, because the wrong had been already pointed out in Lev_18:18.<ref>Keil and Deitzch</ref>

Male homosex is classified as a first tier offense requiring the death penalty, which stipulates that they shall “be put to death”.

J. P. Holding notes:

The punishments range from "worst to best", from death to expulsion to barrenness. This suggests that the crimes are in a "worst to best" range as well, and our verse of concern is smack in the middle - and one of those that gets the death penalty! The context, the structure of the commands, and the punishment together suggest that what we have here is a universal condemnation of all such behavior!<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html</ref>

The use of the term 'lie' (here and in Lev 18:22) without qualifying verbs such as 'seize and (lie)', along with equal punishment for both parties, and two motive clauses 'Both of them have committed an abomination ... their blood is upon them', further evidences the unconditional and universal nature of the ban, and not simply against forcible homosexual intercourse as the Assyrians did, or with youths (as did the Egyptians).<ref>The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Gordon J Wenham http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html</ref>

====Lev. 18:24-30====

Commission to keep commands, and cause of being conquered

Israel here is enjoined to keep both the statutes and judgments of God, and not to know walk in the manners of the nation which God determined to cast out due to the practices He condemned. Similar cause and effect statements occur elsewhere, but not immediately after ceremonial laws, such as in Lev. 11-17.

Lv. 18:24: "Defile not ye yourselves...."; The word which describes the moral condition of the land of the pagans, ''defiled'', is ''ṭâmê''', which can be used to signify ritual or moral defilement. Its first three occurrences in Scripture is to denote the latter, that of Jacob's daughter Dinah, whom Shechem defiled by committing fornication with her, (Gn. 34:5, 13, 27). A sexual cause is the case in other places (Num. 5:13; Dt. 24:4; Ezek. 22:11; 23:7,13,17; 33:26; Hos. 6:10), as well for idolatry. It is used most often in the Levitical chapters on ceremonial ordinances (Lv. 11-17,19).

Lv. 18:25: "the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." The word used in the KJV for vomiteth, ''qô'/qâyâh'', is used twice in both Lev_20:22 and in Lev. 18:28 and as ''spue'', and once in the latter verse as ''spued''. Outside these occurrences it is only used in Job 20:15, Prov. 23:8, 25:16 and Jonah 2:10. The Lord Jesus used a corresponding word in Rv. 3:16 to describe what He would do with the lukewarm unrepentant church. And which judgment ("spue", "cut off") the LORD repeatedly will happen to Israel, if they follow the way of the heathen (vs. 28-30)

Keil and Delitzsch comment,

The land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants - This is a very nervous prosopopoeia or personification; a figure by which any part of inanimate nature may be represented as possessing the passions and reason of man. Here the land is represented as an intelligent being, with a deep and refined sense of moral good and evil: information concerning the abominations of the people is brought to this personified land, with which it is so deeply affected that a nausea is produced, and it vomits out its abominable and accursed inhabitants...The land is personified as a living creature, which violently rejects food that it dislikes. "

Paradoxically, the land is metaphorically said to do the opposite in Num. 14:32, in which the the faithless spies of Israel said it was one that "eateth up the inhabitants thereof".

Lv. 18:26: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments..."; The word for "statutes" (''chûqqâh'''[H2708]) is also often rendered "ordinances" in the [[KJV]] and other translations, and usually refers to the general commands of God, as well as those of pagans and their ways (religion and culture being inseparably intertwined), and even the laws of the universe. (Jer. 31:35; 33:25)

The word for "judgments" (''mishpâṭ ''[H4941]) usually denotes a decree or decision of justice or qualities thereof (Ex. 23:6; Dt. 17:8,9; 32:4)

Albert Barnes comments,

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out before you,.... Nation seems to be put for nations, for there were seven nations cast out for them; though the Canaanites may be intended, being a general name for the whole: some think the Amorites are meant, who were a principal nation, and notorious for their wickedness: hence we often meet with this phrase in Jewish writings, "the way of the Amorites", as being exceeding bad, and so to be avoided, and by no means to be walked in, Gen_15:16,

Lv. 18:27: "For all these abominations..."; in the original language the word use here (and in vs. 27 and 30) for abominations, ''tōʻēḇā'', collectivity referring all of the condemned practices in this chapter, is not used in Leviticus for dietary and ritual cleanness violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel (see “sheqets” and “shâqats” for such), and in contrast it is the word most often used in reference to grave moral abominations.

Henry comments,

Sinful customs are abominable customs, and their being common and fashionable does not make them at all the less abominable nor should we the less abominate them, but the more; because the more customary they are the more dangerous they are.

Lv. 18:29-30: God has elsewhere declared His good will for them and the blessings of obedience, (Ex. 3:,16-18; 6:8; 13:1-5; 19:5,6; 33:1-3) and will do so more, (Lv. 20:24; Dt. 14:12) but here the consequences of disobedience are made clear by varied repetition. Tragically, Israel did not learn obedience for long, but learned the way of the heathen which the prophets pleaded with them not to do, and to turn from (Jer. 6:16; 10:2ff; Is. 1:5; Hos. 6:1-3; 10:12). After much Divine long suffering, they thus realized great destruction in chastisements, and were scattered into the "four corners of the earth" (Lam. Ezek. 7:1-4ff). And to await the promised regathering of Israel (Is. 11:2ff) and redemptive enlightening, (Rom. 11)<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/israel-chosenorforgotten.html</ref> though divergent positions are held on such.<ref>The Millennial Kingdom By John F. Walvoord [http://books.google.com/books?id=2aTJCiHoxfsC&pg=PP1&dq=The+Millennial+Kingdom+By+John+F.+Walvoord#PPR12,M1]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Homosexual misinterpretation]]

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

[[Category:Old Testament]] [[Category:Homosexuality]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2010-07-19T13:34:30Z

CVeritas: copyedit: fixed 2 "and and"; quoted article titles; fixed "4. 4. 5. 5." as 4/5/6/7; put commas & more links

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|225px|thumb|Homosexuality appears to be rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]].]]

The '''causes of [[homosexuality]]''' are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice, though this is an issue that is debated. Those from the most [[liberal]] school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as a healthy identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.<ref>Sylvia Thorson-Smith, ''Reconciling the broken silence'', p. 30</ref> The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

==Causes of homosexuality - biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a [[automaton]] - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]].''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

The record of [[Sodom]], as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where [[iniquity]] abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]

In [[Romans 1]], God, through the [[apostle Paul]], condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]].

==== Conclusion of biblical explanation ====

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the [[etiology]] of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''[[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytical theory]]'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 ''[[USA Today]]'' article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, "Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men", ''Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology'', 33. (1969), pp. 129-33.</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. <ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'' (1985), pp.184-85.</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981).</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", ''Journal of abnormal psychology'', 76 (1970), 396-402.</ref>

===Educational indoctrination===
As part of the liberal ideology in modern [[education]], and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual [[activist]]s, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of [[HIV]] instruction of preventing [[suicide]] by homosexuals, and preventing ''[[homophobia]]''. <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12546/MEDIA/family/index.htm CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents], Concerned Women for America, 3/13/2007</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2009/06/17/indoctrination-of-youth/ Roberto Santiago, The Indoctrination of our Youth],The Chronicle Watch, June 17, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/oldagenda26.php GLSEN, Corruption and Crime], Mission America</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127050 'Hate' laws could label 5-year-olds 'offenders'] WorldNetDaily, March 05, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126233 'Czar' sees transgender school goals in reach], WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683 District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination], WorldNetDaily, March 13, 2007</ref>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>.
*7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>.

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref>

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality:
Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref>

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref> <ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

==See Also==
* [[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Alexandria

2010-06-22T00:55:33Z

CVeritas: copyedit: noted 300 years; +wikilinks; put {reflist}

[[Image:Alexandria map.jpg|right|280px|Ancient map of Alexandria]]
'''Alexandria''', the capital of [[Ancient Egypt]] during the [[Ptolemaic]] era, was the center of the Hellenistic intellectual world. The origins of the city are still unknown, though it is now believed to date back to at least the [[New Kingdom]]. The city was greatly expanded by the [[Greek]] architect [[Dinocrates]] (332-331 BC) at the orders of [[Alexander the Great]]. Egypt was ruled from Alexandria by Ptolemy's descendants, until the death of [[Cleopatra VII]] in 30 BC.

Nearly 300 years before Cleopatra, her ancestor [[Ptolemy I Soter]] had witnessed the expansion of the city, now named Alexandria, and wanted it to be the cultural and intellectual capital of the world. Under the reign of Soter, the golden age of Alexandria, the new capital of Egypt, started. It was the site of the [[Pharos]] Lighthouse, one of the [[Seven Wonders of the Ancient World]], as well as the [[Great Library]].

The Pharos lighthouse was built on the island of Pharos off the coast. The Library at Alexandria, founded under the reign of Ptolemy II, was conceived largely as an attempt to bring together in Alexandria the whole of the earlier Greek science, art, and literature. At one point, the Library is believed to have held close to fifty thousand books (as scrolls). The eventual fate of the Library is uncertain, but fires burned much of the contents, except a separate library-index room, which contained an index of the names of scrolls which had been stored in the Great Library.

Today Alexandria is the second largest city and the main port of [[Egypt]]. <ref> [http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Alexandria/index.html Alexandria, the shining pearl of the Mediterranean] </ref>. The city is one of the main transportation hubs in Egypt after [[Cairo]], having two international airports, a major deepwater harbour (which, until recently, had international ferry services to Italy, Greece and Cyprus) and is a major terminus for intercity rail services. It is also served by the only high-speed rail line in Egypt, linking Alexandria with Ramesses station in Cairo. The Desert Highway expressway (a tollroad) also terminates in Alexandria, connecting the city with Cairo and bypassing the densely populated Nile Delta.

The city has a [[catacomb]] system, underground, which is part of the water system. The tomb of [[Alexander the Great]] is believed to be hidden inside the walls of the catacomb, and its location is a major [[archaeology|archaeological]] mystery.

==See also==
*[[Alexander the Great]]
*[[Cleopatra]]
*[[Cairo]]

== External links ==
*[http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Alexandria/history/ptolemaic.html The Ptolemaic City]
*[http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/Alexandria/history/modern.html The Modern City]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Egypt]]

Censorability

2010-06-21T18:00:09Z

CVeritas: /* Ways to Reduce Censorability */listed several methods & examples

The '''censorability''' of a concept, movement or ideology is its vulnerability of being censored by its opponents. The durability of a movement can be predicted based its censorability; for example, if the fragmented tea parties have a censorability lower than that of a traditional political party, then tea parties may have a brighter future.

== Equation for Censorability ==

Censorability expresses vulnerability to censorship. It is possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following mathematical equation where '''c''' is the number of occurrences of censorship of '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurrences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

::::<math>E_x(t)=\left ( \frac{c}{c+o} \right ) \!</math>100%

The higher the percentage the less resilient the concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''' is to censorship, thus '''censorability''' can be quantified on a scale from "0%" to "100%", where "0%" reflects an ideology that can completely withstand efforts to censor it, while "100%" indicates easy suppression through [[censorship]]. A perfect score for censorability is "0%", reflecting maximum strength.

The score is dependent in part on how the ideology or movement is expressed. For example, if a unique statement or outward sign is required as an essential part of the ideology, then it will have higher censorability than if its articulation is varied.

== Examples ==

Ideologies can be rated for relative censorability as an indication of long-term strength.

Since impirical data for '''<math>x</math>''', '''E''', and '''t''' is currently unavailable for the examples of censorability below, we have assumed values of '''c''' and '''o''' which will produce the correct answers as determined by faith and logic.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Concept or Ideology
!Censorability (Scale 0% to 100%)
!Comments
|-
|[[Pro-Life]]
|~0%
|Virtually impossible to censor; it is manifested in many intrinsic ways. [[Pro-aborts]] have tried with every power imaginable to censor [[pro-lifers]] for 40 years, and even distorted translations of pro-life references in the [[Bible]], and yet pro-life sentiment grows stronger daily.
|-
|[[Freedom]]
|10%
|The desire to be free is an innate characteristic of most people. History has shown that repressive regimes are eventually overthrown, no matter how much they try to indoctrinate their citizens.
|-
|the [[Bible]]
|20%
|Cannot completely ban the book, but some crowd it out with harmful substitutes and liberals distort its meaning with biased translations.
|-
|[[Atheism]]
|20%
|Many do not quickly recognize its forms.
|-
|[[Tea Party Movement]]
|30%
|[[Liberals]] haven't been able to censor it yet, but are trying hard.
|-
|Military recruitment
|30%
|[[Anti-war]] liberals often try to shut down recruitment centers with protests most notably on college campuses, with little success.
|-
|[[Homosexual agenda]]
|30%
|By claiming that criticism of immoral and unhealthy lifestyles is "bigotry," pro-homosexual activists are able to censor critiques of their political agenda.
|-
|[[Chivalry]]
|40%
|[[Feminists]] silence many expressions of chivalry, but human nature cannot be completely suppressed.
|-
|[[Christianity]]
|50%
|Dimwitted censorship of Christian references often occurs.
|-
|[[Republican Party]]
|60%
|Cannot be censored in national elections, but is ostracized and censored on college campuses and in many communities, and was demonized by Bush-haters in the national media
|-
|[[Conservative media]]
|70%
|The truth can't be held back, an improving situation in the United States. Successful suppression is still commonplace.
|-
|[[Creationism]]
|90%
|Absent from virtually every public school curriculum world-wide
|-
|[[Classroom prayer]]
|100%
|Banned for over a hundred million by the actions of a handful
|-
|}

Over time, movements that are relatively difficult to censor -- i.e., have a low censorability -- can thrive. An example is the [[pro-life]] movement: it has virtually a perfect "0%" censorability.

== Censor-Prone Environments ==

Different media, institutions and environments are more censor-prone than others. Colleges are extremely censor-prone environment, perhaps due to a small group of people acting with no accountability. The [[internet]] is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and is relatively immune to censorship.

Most censored speech includes:

*high school and college commencement addresses

(add to list)

== Factors influencing Censorability ==
Ideas and movements' censorability is affected by various factors, including:
* How easily the idea can be taken out of context
* How easily the idea can be distorted and connected with negative ideas (ie. falsely claiming opposition to affirmative action is racism)
* How complex the idea is, or how much background is required to understand it (complex ideas are easy to obfuscate, while simple ideas are hard to censor)

== Ways to Reduce Censorability ==

Quantification of censorability may facilitate reducing the censorability of a movement or good idea. Just as exercise improves physical conditioning, there may be techniques for enhancing the resilient attributes of a message. Specifically, some methods to reduce censorability:
* Use rote learning to repeat a message, then when words are altered, the difference is obvious. In the [[Pledge of Allegiance]], the line ''"One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all"'' will seem different when "under God" is removed. The rote repetition can reveal censorship.
* Repeat a core message multiple times on a page, such as at the top, middle, and bottom. If one gets censored, the others might remain.
* Reword a core message, after stating the rote form, using different words to avoid a global "search-and-replace" of all identical wording. The [[commandment]], ''"Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor"'' could be explained, later, as, "Do not tell lies about another member or person in your area". If the term "[[false witness]]" is removed, perhaps the other wording will remain.
* Repeat a core message on multiple pages, or in multiple images, so that censorship of all instances will require an enormous amount of effort, or reveal suspicious gaps. On some obelisks of [[Ancient Egypt]], the gaps in the [[hieroglyphic writing]], carved in stone, reveal how names or words have been chiseled away and censored.

{{Conservapedia}}
[[category:Conservapedia]]

Cairo

2010-06-21T17:22:13Z

CVeritas: put Egypt map; noted Holy Family, official name "Al-Qahira" with "Misr" & 4 pronunciations; new upper section "Neighborhoods"+footnotes; put References; fixed 14 "it's" & "Jospeh"/cities/parelell

[[Image:5457e.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Pyramid and [[Sphinx]], east of '''Cairo''' across the Nile (''photograph taken by [http://www.ianandwendy.com Ian Sewell])'']]
[[File:Egypt rel97.jpg|thumb|200px|right|'''Cairo''' is located in northeast [[Egypt]], where the Nile branches into the Nile Delta flowing to the [[Mediterranean Sea]].]]

'''Cairo''' ("Ky-roh") is the capital of [[Egypt]] and is home to over 16 million people.<ref> http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf</ref> Cairo sits in the upper part of Egypt on the bank of the [[Nile River]]. The city is still growing, though more slowly than in the past, as Egypt's population growth slows, and the movement of major employers, including many government institutions, to satellite cities such as "6th October", Giza and Helwan. It is believed that Jesus and the [[Holy Family]] lived a while in part of Old Cairo.

Technically, Cairo only refers to the city on the east bank of the Nile, the west bank being Giza, which is administratively separate. Cairo is part of a large built-up area that covers four governates and several cities. The city is typically called by the name of the country, Misr (مصر, Egypt, "Mezz-ruh" or "Masr").<ref name="ixp">
"Egyptian City of Cairo", Online Expatriate Community,
ixpats.com, June 2010, webpage:
[http://ixpats.com/city-cairo/ ixpats-Cairo].
</ref> However, the official name of Cairo is Al-Qāhirah (Arabic: القاهرة ), which means "The Vanquisher" (or "The Triumphant").
Most people in Cairo are [[Sunni]] Moslems, with fewer [[Shiite]] Moslems (the majority sect of [[Iraq]]), but there are also Christians, Jews, and Buddhists.

==Neighborhoods==
Cairo is located on the eastern bank and islands<ref name=ixp/> of the Nile River in northern Egypt, near the point where the Nile leaves its desert-bound valley and splits into two branches which flow into the low-lying Nile Delta region.

The oldest part of the city (Old Cairo) is further east from the riverbank,<ref name=ixp/> which formerly flooded almost every year before the [[Aswan Dam]] was built. From Old Cairo, the city spreads west, covering the agricultural lands next to the Nile. These newer, western areas were built in the layout style of [[Paris]] by Ismail the Magnificent, in the mid-19th century. They have wide boulevards, grand statues, public gardens, and the Cairo Zoo (with hundreds of exotic animals). The older eastern section of the city is more compressed: having expanded haphazardly over thousands of years, it has many small lanes and crowded tenements. While western Cairo is dominated by modern architecture and large government buildings, the eastern section of Cairo is filled with hundreds of ancient mosques which act as landmarks.

Manmade water systems have allowed Cairo to expand, even further east,<ref name=ixp/> into the desert away from the Nile. Bridges link the banks to the Nile islands of Gezira ("ga-Zee-ra") and Roda, where many government buildings have been constructed and government officials live. Bridges also cross the Nile, connecting modern Cairo to the west-bank suburbs of Imbabah and Giza.

On the western edge of Giza, in the desert, is part of the ancient necropolis of [[Memphis]]<ref name=ixp/> on the Giza plateau, with its three large pyramids, including the [[Great Pyramid]] of Giza, and 6 smaller pyramids. Nearly 11 miles (18 km) south from modern Cairo is the site of the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis and the necropolis of [[Saqqara]] ("Sa-Kah-ra", site of [[Djoser]]'s Step Pyramid). Those areas were Cairo's ancient predecessors, when the population was still centered in that general geographical location.<ref name=ixp/>

== Transport ==
=== Railway ===
The main railway station of the conurbation is Rameses station in the Downtown district on the east bank of the river. It is Egypt's busiest railway interchange and the primary transport interchange for the Cairo region, being a hub for intercity, commuter and regional rail, local and regional bus services, the Heliopolis tram, and Metro lines 1 and 2. It is also the terminus for the Turbini high speed rail service to Alexandria.

Cairo has several other important rail stations, including Giza Station on the west bank, which acts a terminus for sleeper trains and some regional services, as well a s major stop for inter-city services heading to Middle and Upper Egypt. Ain Shams station in northern Cairo handles all services using the Suez line. Both these stations are also served by the Metro.

=== Tram ===
Cairo used to have an extensive tram network, but much of it has been lifted in recent decades and now only two systems run, both serving the north of the city. The Heliopolis tram dates to 1906 (the oldest on the continent), and was one of the first electric tram systems in the world. Sadly, the system is now run down, as development of the Metro has been deemed a better solution to the city's transportation issues. However, many people like the tram for its relaxed ride and airiness, despite its slow pace, and until Line 3 reaches Heliopolis, the tram is still the subrubs only rail based transport option. The system is a hybrid of street running and segregated. From its downtown terminus at Ramesses, it runs on a dedicated track, parallel to Metro Line 1, before parting with the Metro and entering Heliopolis suburb, where it splits into three branches, all running on street. The entire system uses 1000 mm gauge, the only system in Egypt to do so. Like the Metro, it takes power from overhead electric wires.

=== Metro ===
Slated a model system, the Metro is a source of great pride to many Egyptians. The only system of its kind on the continent and the entire Middle East, the Metro is clean, organised and efficient. It has 53 stations and carries over 700 million passengers a year. Two lines have been built so far, with Line 3 (with two branches and an airport link) currently under construction, and several more in planning. The Metro includes the only tunnel crossing the Nile at any point, on Line 2.

The Metro is unusual in its administration, in that it is not run by the city government transport authority. As it crosses governate and city borders, it is actually administered by Egypt National Railways, although its ticketing and branding are entirely separate. The Metro has a heavily subsidised flat fare of LE1 for every journey, which, again unusually, is purchased from a manned ticket office, although the ticket checking system is enforced by fully electronic ticket gate systems. Furthermore, some carriages (originally 1, now often 2) are reserved solely for women. Signs on the platform indicate where women only carriage stop, and on the cars, signs on the exterior above the doors indicate that it is a women only carriage.

Routes: 
Line 1: El Marg to Helwan, RED on maps. 
Line 2: Shubra to El Monib, YELLOW/ORANGE on maps. 
Line 3 (under const.): Airport to Mohandiseen (southern branch) and Embaba (northern branch), GREEN on maps. 

Metro stations can be identified by a red "M" in a black, eight pointed star. "Metro" is spelt above the "M" in small arabic script, in white cubic font. Major stations all have a distinctive decorative theme, unique to each station, often making use of modernist flavoured mosaics or tile work. The system is entirely bi-lingual in Arabic and English.

=== Buses ===
Cairo and its conurbation have a number of overlapping bus systems. The municipal authority has the most extensive network, branded "CTA". These buses are large single deckers with white colour scheme with the CTA logo displayed in black down the flanks. They operate on fixed routes, indicated by a three digit number. Most services run every few minutes, and some run 24 hours a day. Fares are 50pt for standard buses and LE2 for air conditioned services, where standing is not permitted, ensuring a more comfortable, less cramped journey. Bus services are always slower than the metro, due to the heavy congestion on many routes.

Private microbuses also operate and to some degree overlap with other services. Some of these also run 24 hours and can be quicker as they have much shorter loading and unloading times, as they carry few passengers.

Major stops, and all stops on certain key roads (such as Sh. Al Ahram) have modern shelters, with clearly printed route maps and tables, though unlike the Metro none of these, nor bus numbers, are bi-lingual.

=== Airport ===
Cairo International Airport is a major global hub, and the 2nd busiest airport on the continent. It has three terminals, including the brand new Terminal 3 for EgyptAir flights, and will be connected to Metro Line 3 in future, ending the long road journey to Downtown that plagues travellers. In the meantime the 6th October expressway tunnels have reduced this already, to some extent.

Cairo is EgyptAir's main hub for both domestic and international flights, with [[Alexandria]] being the secondary hub, operations at the latter being split between two airports. It is possible to fly direct to Cairo from almost all European and Middle Eastern capitals, to several cities in the Americas (mostly on the eastern coastline), and to southern and eastern Asia, where routes are improving. Connections to sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania and Central Asia are less well developed.

Domestically, EgyptAir offers very good service, with near hourly "shuttle" connections to most key cities using a fleet of brand new Embraer E170 jets. The carrier is the "flag carrier" of Egypt, and like the Metro, is a source of considerable national pride as an internationally well respected airline.

==Culture==
===Pyramids===
Giza is home to the [[Pyramids]], the only remaining wonder of the world, built around 2500BC to glorify the [[Pharaoh]]s. Millions of visitors come to visit them, and wonder at their construction. With these is the Solar Boat of [[Khufu]], excavated from beside the [[Great Pyramid]] and found in almost perfect condition, disassembled. It has been assembled and now has its own dedicated museum on top of the original spot of its discovery.

===Egyptian Museum===
Downtown Cairo houses the world famous Egyptian Museum, which has the largest collection of Pharaonic artefacts in the world, including the famous treasure of [[Tutankhamun]]. One of the first curators of the museum, and the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation is buried in its grounds, which also house a pond planted with the now endangered Nile Lotus flower. The museum is one of the oldest in Africa, and was founded in the 1850's, though at a different location to its current home, which dates to the early 20th century, and was purpose built, though long ago exceeded its intended storage and display capacity.

===Coptic Cairo===
Coptic Cairo is one of Cairo's oldest surviving quarters, dating to the Roman era, whose fortifications are still standing, and include much looted masonry from the Pharaonic cities of Memphis and Heliopolis, both nearby. Coptic Cairo is home to many famous [[Christian]] churches such as the "Hanging Church", named for its famous architecture. It is also home to the Cathedral of [[St. Joseph]] and the [[Coptic Museum]], run by the Patriarchiate, and home to the largest museum collection of Coptic antiquities in the world. It was one of the first museums in Egpyt to make use of interactive media to present its exhibits via the internet, and has an extensive online catalogue to aid those researching artefacts of the true religion. Coptic Cairo also has several monasteries, and many work with city youth and help the poor of the city, as well as being involved in small-scale model enterprises. The area has seen much investment, of late, in being redeveloped to make it appealing to tourism and improve the quality of life for its residents, and to avoid the "donut effect" (of inner-city blight) that has been feared with the move of major employers to the new satellite towns.

===Gezira Island===
Gezira Island is one of the most exclusive districts, and is home to many foreign embassies, the rich, and much of the city's green space. It is also home to some of Cairo's modern landmarks, the [[Cairo Opera House]], and Cairo Tower, which is taller than the [[Great Pyramid]] in the desert to the west.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Egypt]]
[[Category:Capital Cities]]
[[Category:African Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:Egyptian History]]

Aswan Dam

2010-06-21T14:23:51Z

CVeritas: bolded 3 titles (Aswan Dam, Aswan Low Dam & Lake Nasser); put NASA photo+caption & Egypt map; fixed "mny"; etc.

[[File:Aswan.JPG|thumb|280px|right|The '''Aswan Low Dam''' provides a straight road (''left center'') crossing the waters of the Nile. The taller, wider '''Aswan High Dam''' (''curved, right'') has created the immensely long '''Lake Nasser''' (''right edge''), seen in this NASA photo (Oct. 2008). Lake Nasser extends another 200 miles upriver, to the border of [[Sudan]].]]

The '''Aswan Dam''', '''Aswan Low Dam''' and '''Lake Nasser''' are located along the [[Nile]] in southeast [[Egypt]]. The first Aswan Dam (or Aswan Low Dam) was built during 1898-1902 at the first cataract of the Nile, near Aswan. It was re-built higher in later years, and it provides a road crossing the large rocks of the Nile's 1st cataract. The newer Aswan Dam (or Aswan High Dam), 360 feet high, built from 1960-1970, was a project of [[Gamal Abdel Nasser]]. This second [[dam]] was built to prevent the [[Nile River]] from flooding and to generate [[electricity]]. The dam's waters drive one of the world's largest [[hydroelectric]] generating stations and are used to irrigate over 1 million acres of farmland.<ref>The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989</ref>

The dam had major political, socio-political and environmental repercussions. The withdrawal of pledges of finance by the [[United States]] and [[United Kingdom]] in 1956 prompted President Nasser to nationalise the [[Suez Canal]] and led to the [[Suez Crisis]].

== Environmental Impact ==
The Aswan High Dam stopped all seasonal inundation of Egypt. As a result, although free of the uncertainty of a low or high flood, it has led to the degradation of Egyptian agricultural land. Along with water, the inundation brought massive quantities of organically rich silt, which was deposited on the land as the water fell. This made artificial fertilisers totally un-necessary, and added greatly to the depth of the topsoil. The Nile delta was, prior to the dam, the most fertile agricultural region in the world, and the silt rich topsoil over 70 feet deep in places. This is no longer the case, and agriculture in Egypt is now entirely dependent on artificial fertilisers to keep the fields alive.
[[File:Egypt_rel97.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The Aswan Low Dam and Aswan High Dam are north of '''Lake Nasser''' (covering 200 miles along the Nile) in southeast Egypt (''right-click image to enlarge'').]]

In addition, Egyptian fields were, prior to the construction of the dam, the only large-scale irrigated agricultural area where soil salinisation did not occur. This was due to the "washing" effect of the inundation in flushing salts from the soil each year. Salinisation of agricultural land is now the single biggest problem in Egyptian agriculture, especially as irrigation methods centre around flood irrigation.

Soil erosion has also increased dramatically, as silt from the inundation no longer replenishes lost material along the riverbank, and also the low-lying delta coastline, which is largely built up on sediment transport from the Nile. As a result, the delta coastline is now heavily eroded, having retreated in some areas by over 1/4 of a mile, threatening the destruction of the brackish delta lagoons which support much of the Egyptian fishing industry, and many coastal settlements. Ironically, at the same time, Lake Naser, the lake formed by the Aswan High Dam, is silting up, reducing both its water storage capacity, and the ability of the dam to generate hydro-electric power.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Egypt]]

Ancient Egypt

2010-06-21T13:37:55Z

CVeritas: put map & copy-edited: respell "fourth"/"trading", wikilinks, "Pharaoh" +spaces, hyphens, apostrophes & commas/periods

[[File:Egypt_rel97.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Modern Egypt covers only a portion of Ancient Egypt, which included lands to the south and east.]]
The '''Ancient Egyptian''' civilisation flourished in the Nile Valley from the late 4th millennium BC, until its absorption into the [[Roman empire]] in 30 BC. After this time Ancient Egyptian culture and religion continued to flourish in Egypt until a decree by the Byzantine emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD forced the closure of [[Philae]] Temple.

[[Pharaoh|Pharaonic]] culture, statecraft, literature, law, religious belief, scientific and technological advantages left a profound legacy upon the world, in particular the [[Greece|Greek civilization]] which absorbed much Egyptian learning through the Ptolemaic metropolis of [[Alexandria]].

== Geography ==
Ancient Egypt was a culture focused around the [[Nile Valley]], and it was here the Predynastic confederacies and petty chieftains were finally united to begin the Dynastic period at the end of the fourth millennium BC.

The Nile Valley had a profound impact upon Egyptian culture and thinking. Its natural boundaries of almost empty deserts to east and west, the first cataract in the south, and [[Mediterranean]] sea in the north fostered the early adoption of a nation-state identity. These boundaries also protected Egypt in times of strife elsewhere in the region. Despite this, Egypt was not an island, and traded with neighbours in [[Nubia]], [[Libya]] and the [[Levant]], as well as further afield.

Egypt’s climate varied over time and location, through during the Dynastic era was, as it is today, predominantly a [[desert climate]], with long, hot summers and short, relatively mild winters, with rainfall being insignificant, with a Mediterranean climate prevailing in the Delta and far north.

The inundation defined the seasons. The [[Nile]], swollen by rains in [[Ethiopia]], never failed to rise each summer, though the level of rise varied greatly. As it rose, the water spread over the flood plain, depositing large amounts of mud, silt and organic matter, laying down a nutrient rich layer, replenishing the soil and soaking it. For three months the water remained before retreating, leaving enough moisture in the ground that no further irrigation would be necessary on the first harvest. It was this inundation that would be the foundation for Egypt’s great wealth, built not on gold, but on grain.

== Chronology ==
[[Egyptian chronology|Egyptian history]] is split up into distinct periods, with the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms separated from each other and the Late Period by so-called “Intermediate Periods”, times of disunity and apparent unrest, or of foreign occupation. All dates before the Late Period are circa, and when dealing with purely Egyptian issues, it is common to work only within a framework of reigns and dynasties, rather than absolute dates.

=== Old Kingdom ===
The [[Old Kingdom]] covers Dynasties 3 to 6 (circa 2800 – 2186 BC). Although it has been argued by some that it should include Dynasties 1 – 3, and by others that it should only cover Dynasties 4 – 6, though 3 to 6 is the most widely accepted, beginning as it does with the revolutionary architecture of [[Djoser]].

The Old Kingdom is in many ways the zenith of the [[Divine Kingship]], and sees Pharaonic culture at it’s most confident and powerful, expressed in this periods most famous monuments, the Giza [[Pyramids]].

During this period the Egyptian state developed an all encompassing and highly organised bureaucracy, organised into a strictly hierarchical and highly centralised structure dominated by the [[Pharaoh]], who exercised an extremely high degree of control over resources.

The Old Kingdom came to an end in circumstances that are far from clear, but seem to be linked to the extremely long rule of Pepi II, at 96 years, the longest reigning monarch in history.

Following this, Egypt lapsed into a period of national fragmentation, called the First Intermediate Period, lasting approximately 105 years.

=== Middle Kingdom ===
The [[Middle Kingdom]] saw Egypt re-unified under the 11th Dynasty, a royal line from Thebes, following by the northern 12th Dynasty who maintained a royal capital at [[Lisht]].

The Middle Kingdom sees the Egyptian nation engage for the first time in serious warfare. Under the great military Pharaohs [[Sensuret I]] and [[Senusret III]], Egypt annexed Lower Nubia, fixing a realm of Egyptian domination that extended south of the Second Cataract for the first time in history, reinforced by a series of fortresses with an unprecedented degree of sophistication.

A similar chain of fortresses secured the [[Sinai]] peninsula and Eastern delta, known as the [[Horus Road]] and [[Walls of the Ruler]]. These secured the overland route to [[Asia]], and defended the boarder. Despite this military strength, only a single expedition into Asia itself was carried out,

The grim work of re-unification and securing the borders left an indelible mark of the ideology of the period. Literature of the time often harks back to the chaos of the 1st Intermediate Period, and the ideal of importance of loyalty to, and adoration of, the ruler is also a strong theme.

Statuary of the time shows the great Pharaohs of the period with serious, stern expressions, showing a human side that planned and fought long and hard to reunify a fractured nation and to push on to new boundaries deep into hostile territory. This signaled a break with the past, and the future, for both the [[Old Kingdom]] and all successive periods (with the exception of [[Amarna]]) showing the Pharaoh in the traditional manner, in a state of divine serenity.

The [[Middle Kingdom]] met it’s end in the mid-13th Dynasty, as foreign influence permeated the heavily defended Sinai, eventually providing the momentum for an Asiatic dynasty to seize the Delta and Middle Egypt, and hold it for approximately 100 years.

=== New Kingdom ===
The [[New Kingdom]] is often called Egypt’s “Age of Empire”. Following the war of Reunification led by the 17th Dynasty, [[Ahmose I]] finally managed to liberate and reunify Egypt, founding the [[18th Dynasty]] and the [[New Kingdom]] in approximately 1500BC.

The Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty re-invented the Egyptian military forces, adopting the most advanced weapons of the day. Egyptian tactics were also revolutionized, becoming highly innovative. Many Egyptian campaigns of this period are regarded as military genius, with [[Thutmose III]] being regarded by most as the “[[Napoleon]] of Egypt”. These campaigns ultimately created a sprawling and varied Egyptian empire, stretching from [[Gebel Barkal]] to the [[Euphrates]], and a zone of influence far beyond.

It was at the height of this time of greatness that Egypt was plunged into turmoil. The heretical ruler, [[Amunhotep IV]], changed his name to [[Akhenaten]] and embraced a corrupted form of the Solar Cult as an absolutist [[monotheistic]] belief. Traditional temples were closed, and the capital city moved to a desert plain in Middle Egypt, where a new capital was established, named [[Akhetaten]]. Akhenaten died after 17 years on the throne, and both his cult and capital both died with him.

The Egyptian empire proved resilient to such trauma, and the traditional New Kingdom capital and cults were immediately restored, and the empire remained essentially unchallenged in Asia until the time of [[Ramesses III]] in the 20th Dynasty, and maintained it’s grip on Nubia until the fall of the New Kingdom at the close of the 20th Dynasty.

=== Late Period ===
It was with a sense of irony, that the impetus for re-unifying Egypt and rebuilding her former power would come from Nubia. The 25th Dynasty advanced out of their base at [[Napata]], and secured all of [[Upper Egypt]] by a process of gradual conquest, winning recognition from local nonarchs and forming a confederacy. The Assyrians, with their vassals in the Delta, were alarmed, advanced south and sacked [[Thebes]]. However, the example had been made, and with the help of Greek mercenaries, [[Psamtik I]] of [[Sais]] freed himself from his [[Assyrian]] overlord, and reunified Egypt.

The 26th Dynasty harked back to the [[Old Kingdom]] for it’s inspiration, in art religion and ideals of Kingship, and the period is often referred to as the “[[Saite Renaissance]]” or “Archaic Renaissance”.

The [[Late Period]] saw increased contact with the Hellenic world, with many Greek mercenaries serving in the Egyptian military, and a Greek merchants settling in the purpose built trading center of [[Naukratis]]. This ultimately proved fatal, and in 525 BC, [[Persian]] forces, with a large number of Greek mercenaries conquered Egypt following the defection of a key Egyptian mercenary commander, [[Phanes of Hallicarnassus]].

Egypt liberated herself from Perisan rule in 404BC, bringing to power the 29th and 30th Dynasties, the last sustained period of Egyptian native rule. The second Persian occupation was much more brief, lasting just over a decade from 343BC until the invasion of [[Alexander]] in 332BC.

=== Ptolemaic Period ===
Alexander put an end to the second Persian occupation in 332BC. Having secured Egypt, he traveled to the Oracle of [[Amun]] in [[Siwa]] Oasis, where the oracle pronounced him the Son of Amun, and legitimate ruler of Egypt. He also visited [[Memphis]], the traditional administrative capital of Egypt and centre of the cult of [[Ptah]]. These acts won him the respect of some of the Egyptian elite. Alexander also decided to develop a port on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. He chose the coastal town of [[Ra-Kedet]], which would be redeveloped into the metropolis of [[Alexandria]], serving to link Egypt to his empire.

Following Alexander’s death, control of Egypt fell first of all to [[Phillip Arrhideaus]], then [[Alexander IV]], before passing to [[Ptolemy I]], a former general of Alexander. His decedents would rule Egypt with greatly varying degrees of success until the death of [[Cleopatra VII]] in 30BC. Although sometimes thought of as a period of unity equivalent to the New Kingdom, the Ptolemaic period was often highly unstable and wracked by rebellion. Ptolemaic rule became increasingly exploitative, thought the dynasty kept a superficial adherence to Egyptian religious and social traditions that ensured support, or at least neutrality, of the priesthood.

See also: [[Ptolemaic Period]] the [[Great Egyptian Revolt]].

=== Roman/Byzantine/Coptic Period ===
Roman rule attempted to integrate Egypt into the trading system of the [[Roman empire]], utilizing the wealth and productivity of Egyptian agriculture to supply the Rome and it’s army, and became increasingly exploitative, leading [[Rome]] to maintain three legions in the country. Traditional Roman tolerance of other religions and ways of life also assisted their moves to consolidate control, but administrative reforms did not help the gradual decline brought about by over exploitation, unrest, and Rome’s problems elsewhere. The rise of [[Christianity]] led to further pressures, and by the time of the [[Arab]] invasion, Egypt had become depopulated, with most of her cities lying abandoned.

== Government ==
Throughout the Dynastic Period, Egypt was an [[absolute monarchy]], ruled by a monarch regarded as divine. Egypt was a centralized state, with the monarch having the positions of [[head of state]], [[head of government]], head of the judiciary, [[commander in chief]] of the armed forces, and high priest of every temple. The monarch had several titles, the most well known being from the Greek derived “[[Pharaoh]]” (Egyptian: pr-aA, reconstructed as Per-‘a), though the more common Egyptian title was nsw-bity (Nesu-Bity), possibly translated as “King of Upper and Lower Egypt"). Day to day administration was overseen by a [[vizier]] (Egyptian: TAty, reconstructed as Tjaty), and in some periods of Egyptian history two viziers were appointed, one for Upper and one for Lower Egypt, reflecting a duality present in much of the administration.

The treasury, likewise, reflected the natural separation of the country, though a single treasurer oversaw both “The Overseer of the Double Granaries” being a common title for this role.

From at least the New Kingdom, Egypt maintained a full time professional military force consisting of an army and naval fleet, as well as a separate police and patrol force, the mDAw (reconstructed as ''Medjay'').

Labour for large-scale state works was provided by the public under a corvee requirement. See: [[Labour in Ancient Egypt]].

== Economy ==
The economy of Ancient Egypt has sometimes been described as a command economy. There is insufficient information available to determine to exactly what degree the state directed economic activity, but that it played a very large role in the economy is clear, and in keeping with the Egyptian doctrine that the land and its resources belonged to the Pharaoh. The view of many scholars is that this position was more literally true in the Old Kingdom, and over time, as the population expanded and economy became more complex, more delegation and autonomy became necessary, and towards the end of Late Period, land could be brought and sold by private individuals.

=== Agriculture ===
The bedrock of the Egyptian economy, and source of its wealth, was irrigation-assisted agriculture. The Nile valley was an almost perfect environment for agriculture to thrive, with abundant water and fertile top soil. The Nile flooding, almost every year, would deposit extremely rich and continually refreshed soil, and the floods made Egypt one of the only places where soil salinisation did not occur. The principal crops were emmer wheat, barely and flax, backed up by market gardening (onions, garlic, lettuce, cabbages etc). However, a variety of luxury goods were also grown, and it is known the grapes for wine were cultivated, alongside orchards, almonds and olives, dates, and bee-keeping for honey. Animal rearing, particularly cattle ranching, was also important.

=== Mining ===
Mining and quarrying were important state industries, supplying the raw materials for tools and luxury goods. Egypt had abundant limestone, sandstone, granite, gold and copper reserves, along with precious and semi-precious [[gemstone]]s. Quarrying was almost entirely a royal monopoly, but small-scale private extraction by monarchs occurred in sites nearest to the river. (see: [[Ancient Egyptian Mining]]).

=== Trade ===
For most of Egyptian history, the international trade was a royal monopoly, and was enforced through a system of border checkpoints. Merchants mostly operated by acting as agents for the state and essentially trading on their behalf, and goods in international trade were taxed. Major transactions and contracts were put in writing, and records survive. In the Ptolemaic period, a [[sales tax]] was also levied.

From the time of unification onwards Egypt traded with her immediate neighbors in Nubia and southern Palestine, and by the 2nd Dynasty royal trading expeditions traded regularly with Bybos, a key Egyptian partner in foreign affairs throughout much of the Pharaonic period. Trade with Punt, a land generally regarded as lying in the region of Eritrea was established by the 5th Dynasty, if not earlier.

== Society ==
Egyptian society was deeply conservative and hierarchical. The pyramid analogy is perhaps over used to describe Egyptian society, but nonetheless remains accurate, with the [[Pharaoh]] at the apex, above the vizier and other prominent courtiers, some with seemingly trivial titles but great influence, such as Fan Bearers, Sandal Bearers, Seal Bearers etc.

Beneath these were the Great Nobles, followed by Egypt’s large bureaucracy and officialdom. Beneath them stood the artisans and craftsmen. At the bottom of society proper, and accounting for circa. 80% of the population, the farmers. In addition to this, as in all societies, there also existed the “classless” people. Convicts, captives and the unfree, as well as the desert nomads and oasis dwellers who lives within Egypt’s area of influence, but never entirely integrated into Egyptian society.

The place of the military fluctuated, from a minor an important role in the Old Kingdom, which fielded no standing army, to a prominent role in the New Kingdom, where the 19th Dynasty bloodline is descended from military routes.

== Legacy ==
It is generally held that Pharaonic civilization left behind no direct cultural decedents. The [[Egyptian Language|Egyptian language]] survived into Coptic, and much Egyptian iconographic conventions were adopted into the Christian religion, particularly the Coptic church. Some Egyptian loan words survive today in Egyptian Arabic, which is distinctly different to other dialects, and, particularly in Upper Egypt, a few folk customs also survived at least until the early 20th century. Besides this however, there is little continuity in traditions.

Indirectly, Pharaonic culture left huge contributions to the world. Egypt was the first true nation-state, laying the foundations upon which the modern world is built. The development of bureaucratic administration based on writing, education, merit based selection, are all found in Egyptian culture. Technologically, the use of finished stone for construction, the use of paper, the art of architectural design, site surveying etc are first noted in Egypt, and possibly the disposable drill bit marks the first use of multi part disposable tools.

Academically, the science of medicine in Egypt was well understood, and the Greeks, often considered the fathers of western medicine, acknowledged the Egyptians as the finest physicians in the known world.

== Ancient Egypt in Modern Culture ==
Thanks to the distinctive and instantly recognizable style of Egyptian artwork and hieroglyphs, as well as the keen sense of aesthetic that pervaded so many aspects of the culture, Egyptian culture has a high profile and is perhaps one of the most instantly recognizable ancient cultures, even to those with very little historical knowledge. Despite this, time has not been kind to the reputation of Pharaonic Egypt, and the civilization today is sometimes perceived as tyrannical, brutal, decadent and superstitious, a view reinforced by a fog of popular mis-information, urban myths, and pseudo-archaeology (sometimes referred to as Extreme Egyptology or Alternate Egyptology) that surrounds Pharaonic culture.

Despite this, television programs covering new discoveries or examine particular aspects of Egyptian history (sometimes in a way that is itself confused or mis-informed) still attract a keen following, and the lives and achievements of the Pharaonic era continues to support he economy of modern Egypt though tourism, one of the three biggest foreign exchange sources in Egypt today.

==Further reading==
* David, R. ''Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt'' (1998)
* Dodson, A. & Hilton, D. ''Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt'' (2004)
* Gardiner, A. ''Egyptian Grammar'' (3rd edition 1957)
* Montet, P. ''Eternal Egypt'' (1964)
* Mysliwiec, K. ''The First Millennium BCE: The Twilight of Ancient Egypt'' (2000)
* Newby, P. H. ''Warrior Pharaohs : The Rise and Fall of the Egyptian Empire'' (1980)
* Shaw, I et al. (2000), ''Oxford History of Ancient Egypt'',
* Thompson, Jason. ''A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present'' (2009) 432 pages
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/ancient-and-classical-history/egypt/ancient-egypt.jsp online books and articles]

== External Links ==

Early Dynastic Period (Dynasties 1-3)

Old Kingdom (Dynasties 4-6)
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/2210-2090%20BC.htm Timeline 2210-2090 BC]

1st Intermediate Period (Dynasties 7-11a
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/2210-2090%20BC.htm Timeline 2210-2090 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/2090-1970%20BC.htm Timeline 2090-1970 BC]

Middle Kingdom (Dynasties 11b-12)
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/2090-1970%20BC.htm Timeline 2090-1970 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1970-1850%20BC.htm Timeline 1970-1850 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1850-1730%20BC.htm Timeline 1850-1730 BC]

2nd Intermediate Period (Dynasties 13-17)
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1850-1730%20BC.htm Timeline 1850-1730 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1750-1630%20BC.htm Timeline 1750-1630 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1630-1510%20BC.htm Timeline 1630-1510 BC]

New Kingdom (Dynasties 18-20)
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1630-1510%20BC.htm Timeline 1630-1510 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1510-1390%20BC.htm Timeline 1510-1390 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1410-1290%20BC.htm Timeline 1410-1290 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1290-1170%20BC.htm Timeline 1290-1170 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1170-1050%20BC.htm Timeline 1170-1050 BC]

Late Dynastic Period (Dynasties 21-31)
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1170-1050%20BC.htm Timeline 1170-1050 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/1050-930%20BC.htm Timeline 1050-930 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/930-810%20BC.htm Timeline 930-810 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/810-690%20BC.htm Timeline 810-690 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/690-570%20BC.htm Timeline 690-570 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/570-450%20BC.htm Timeline 570-450 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/470-350%20BC.htm Timeline 470-350 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/350-230%20BC.htm Timeline 350-230 BC]

Greek-Roman Period (Macedonian, Ptolemaic & Roman Kings)
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/350-230%20BC.htm Timeline 350-230 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/240-120%20BC.htm Timeline 240-120 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/120-1%20BC.htm Timeline 120-1 BC]
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/10%20BC-110%20AD.htm Timeline 10 BC - 110 AD]

[[Category:Ancient Egypt]]
[[Category:Egypt]]
[[Category:History]]

Amenhotep IV

2010-06-21T13:33:16Z

CVeritas: noted "nephew, Tutankhaton, renamed by the priests as Tutankhamun"; put References

'''Amenhotep IV''', or '''Akhenaten''', was [[Pharaoh]] of [[Egypt]] from 1353 - 1336 [[B.C.]] as part of the 18th Dynasty. He is famous for rejecting the traditional [[pagan]] gods of Egypt in favor of the sun, which he called [[Aton]]. He changed the capital from [[Thebes]] to Akhetaton (modern [[Amarna]]) to escape the influence of the priests of [[Ra]].

Statues of him show an artistic form new in Egypt, including various deformities which have led some scholars to conclude he had [[Marfan's syndrome]] or [[Frolich’s syndrome]]. However, various courtiers were also depicted similarly.<ref name="AIG">John Ashton & David Down. ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/utp/akhenaten-and-nefertiti-the-beautiful Unwrapping the Pharaohs, chapter 21]'''</ref>

The mysterious disappearance of his wife [[Nefertiti]] from the historical record has led scholars to many speculations, ranging from her usurping power to Akhenaten's banishing her.

He was assassinated, leading to the eventual reign of his famous boy-king nephew, Tutankhaton, renamed by the priests as [[Tutankhamun]], or "King Tut". His [[monotheism]] did not survive his reign. After his death, Egypt went back to the former [[polytheistic]] religion, and the royal priests regained their power.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Pharaohs]]

Arabic numerals

2010-06-19T03:36:12Z

CVeritas: new heading "Numerals in the Arab World" & References

'''Arabic numerals''' are the number system most commonly used in the world: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

The term "Arabic numeral" is a misnomer that originated in 1847. The more accurate term is "Hindu-Arabic numeral", as the origin of the numerals is [[Hinduism]] in [[India]] between 400 B.C. and A.D. 400. The only connection with Arabs is that they communicated this system to [[Europe]] in the A.D. 900s, through Arabian [[mathematics|mathematicians]]. Most Arabs did not use these Indian numerals.

Note that Hindu-Arabic numerals include zero (0): Asian Indians were the first to discover and use this concept.

Westerners such as King John of England learned about Hindu-Arabic numerals as early as A.D. 1200, but there was resistance to converting from the Roman numeral system. It was not until the early 1500s, around the same time as the [[Reformation]], that Hindu-Arabic numerals became widely used in Western Europe.

==Numerals in the Arab World==
Despite the name as "Arabic numerals", the numerals used in Arab countries, such as Egypt, are almost entirely different symbols, except for the "1" and "9".<ref name="Apic">
"Numeral pictograms" (of 10 Arab digit symbols), image:
[http://www.arabicnumerals.net/images/numrightleft.jpg ANjpg].
</ref>
In fact, an Arab 5 is designated by "o" which looks like zero, while zero is designated by a heavy dot "•". The basic ten digit symbols are as follows: <ref name=Apic/>
{| cellpadding=0
|
:: Number: 
| 0  || 1  || 2  || 3  || 4  || 5  || 6  || 7  || 8  || 9  || (the Arabic numerals)
|-
|
:: Arabic:
|•|| I|| Γ|| Ґ|| <big>ε</big>|| o|| 7|| V|| <big>^</big>|| 9 || (numerals in the Arab World)
|}
Note how the Arab 6 looks like a seven ("7"). In typical usage, the Arab numeric symbols are more curved (than shown above), similar to the curvature of letters in the Arabic alphabet.<ref name=Apic/>
Some examples:  6004 = 7 • • <big>ε</big>  or  year 2010 = Γ • I • . Those numerals are believed to be derived from hand-signing of numbers, such as 5 (symbol "o") being the circle of touching the thumb to the fingertips.<ref name="ANnet">
"Origin of the Arabic Numerals", Adel S. Bishtawi,
[http://www.arabicnumerals.net/chapter_1.html AN-chap1].
</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Roman Numerals

2010-06-17T14:08:18Z

CVeritas: expanded, more examples to clarify, noting "horizontal bar" as "-"; copyedit: simplified wording for new readers; reword "you" +Olympiad

'''Roman Numerals''' are numeric symbols, originally used by the Roman Empire, to show numeric values, such as LXII for 62, or MMIX for 2009. A Roman numeral can contain the following letters, to denote each value:

:* I = 1
:* V = 5
:* X = 10
:* L = 50
:* C = 100
:* D = 500
:* M = 1000

== Large Numbers ==
To write large numbers, like for instance five thousand, [[Roman]]s would not use MMMMM. Rather, they would write V and put a horizontal bar "–" over the V. A bar over a letter represents one thousand times that letter.

== Subtraction ==
Letters are put in order from greatest to least. A lesser letter occurring before a greater letter is subtraction. When subtracting, only subtracting powers of ten such as I, X, or C is allowed. For example, subtracting a V is not allowed. Also, only one digit can be subtracted. For example, IIX is not 8 but rather use VIII for 8. Finally, one letter cannot be subtracted from another letter if it is ten times greater than it, so one would not be able to subtract X from M since M is one hundred times greater than X. Yet, X can be subtracted from either L or C, as XL (40) or XC (90). In Roman times, while any combination of numerals, which totals as the appropriate number, was considered sufficient, only the above method was considered proper. In rare cases, the number 9 is written as VIIII, rather than IX.

:* Example 1983 = MCMLXXXIII
:* Example 1200 = MCC
:* Example 2011 = MMXI

== Modern Use ==

While the system of [[Arabic numerals]] has become the standard contemporary numeral system, Roman numerals are still used today in limited settings. They express years on building [[Cornerstone|cornerstones]] or denote an epoch which dates [[art]] or [[literature]]. They also count installments in a series, such as movie sequel numbers, each [[Super Bowl]], or each Olympiad of the [[Olympics]]. Roman numerals also designate the ordering of monarchs (i.e., [[Queen Elizabeth II]] or France's [[King Louis XIV]]).

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Roman History]]

Federalist Papers

2010-06-17T13:30:45Z

CVeritas: expanded, for book "The Federalist" published in 1788 +image of book title page

[[File:Fed Papers1787 Cover.jpg|thumb|right|Title page of ''The Federalist'' as a book publishing the essays in 1788 (note [[Roman numeral]] at bottom of page, year: MDCCLXXXVIII).<ref>Roman numeral MDCCLXXXVIII totals as MDCC=1700 + LXXX=80 + VIII=8 or 1788.</ref>]]

The '''Federalist Papers''' were a series of articles published anonymously in a New York newspaper during 1787-1788 to encourage New York to ratify the [[U.S. Constitution]]. They were also collected as a book titled ''"The Federalist"'' published as 2 volumes in 1788 (''see image'') and reprinted in later years. These articles, 51 by [[Alexander Hamilton]], 29 by [[James Madison]] and 5 by [[John Jay]], are often used today in interpreting the Constitution. All three authors wrote the articles under the pen name "[[Publius]]".

A portion of the articles are undated, while the dated ones range from November 20, 1787 to April 4, 1788. Originally, they were numbered with [[Roman numeral]]s but later reprinted with [[Arabic numerals]].

The most famous article is ''Federalist No. 10'' by James Madison, where he argues that a union of the States will better combat factions, even factions within an individual State.

The full text of the Federalist Papers are available online.<ref>''The Federalist Papers'', Gutenberg Project: [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/feder16.txt Guten-16].</ref>

== References ==
<div style="font-size:92%">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-06-17T05:08:35Z

CVeritas: put diff-link for WP "Philadelphia Convention" misleading readers over 5 years

Below is a growing list of examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales contact the atheist Jimmy Wales] about any biases you find at Wikipedia. And please be sure to ask Mr. Wales why the Conservapedia [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[atheism]] articles contain information that you will not find at the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.
 
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... "progressivism": "By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy</ref> Where on earth did that [[liberal denial]] come from?
# Wikipedia omits an entry on [[fetal pain]], and instead redirects visitors to a different entry that denies the obvious pain experienced by unborn children during an [[abortion]]. Nine peer-reviewed studies confirm that there is fetal pain beginning at 20 weeks, as presented during legislative hearings in 2010 on the Nebraska [[Abortion Pain Prevention Act]], but Wikipedia insists on [[liberal denial]] and citation to only a few implausible, pro-abortion claims.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain</ref>
# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers. In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia includes the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref> Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.
# In a most deceitful, [[Fascism#Inspiration_for_the_New_Deal|fascist]] political tactic [[Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] biography on [[Barack Obama]] discusses in detail his early childhood from when his parents met in 1960 to 1994 when Obama first served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Then the article skips 1995 when Obama accepted the nomination and ran as a candidate of a [[Marxist]] political party called the [[New Party]],<ref>http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Political_career</ref> and it jumps ahead to after "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Political_career:_1996.E2.80.932008</ref> The stink of intellectual corruption in Wikipedia reeks of deceit, censoring an entire year of Barack Obama's life as a candidate before he got elected.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama#Illinois_State_Senate_.281995-2005.29</ref>
# [[Barack Obama]] cannot give a coherent speech without reading from a [[teleprompter]],<ref>Obama "uses a teleprompter during most speeches and even brief remarks" [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/when-obamas-teleprompter-crashed-mid-speech_100217852.html]</ref> and even had two of them set up in an elementary school just to talk to reporters there. But Wikipedia's lengthy entry about Obama does not mention the teleprompter, not even once.
# Wikipedia's article on the [[French Revolution]] censors the central role [[atheism]] played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]].<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution</ref>
# When someone goes to Wikipedia's "Constitutional Convention" page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page. Since 2005, they have named the US page as the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Convention&diff=31214002&oldid=31213911] diluting its significance. They have not even renamed it "U.S. Constitutional Convention" and Google mostly matches "Philadelphia Convention ''Center''" as a building. The US Convention is over 100-200 years older than the other conventions listed, and an Internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors have insisted on redirecting visitors to the obscure term, for over 5 years.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Thanksgiving]] is a clearcut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving; from giving thanks to God as the holiday is meant to be, and instead changing history by claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's [[political correctness]] is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with [[atheists]].
# On Wikipedia's article which lists most online encyclopedias an edit done from an anonymous IP address defamed Conservapedia by labeling it Far-right <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_online_encyclopedias&action=historysubmit&diff=326381379&oldid=315763628</ref> This edit lasted for close to 2 months until it was finally removed, ironically by a conservative editor.
# Wikipedia Homosexual agenda by its editors is clearly visible here <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335800503&oldid=335420724</ref> where a userbox saying ''This user supports heterosexual marriage only is removed''. This user was later blocked and the official reason was for uploading a copyrighted image, but other users have uploaded many copyrighted images but who are not conservative and thus aren't blocked <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wad572</ref>.
#[[Barack Obama]] lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref>
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of [[global warming]] science ([[climategate]]) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate</ref>
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."<ref>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck</ref> However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (''aka'' [[Barack Obama]]) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."<ref>ref: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about [[An Inconvenient Truth]] ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills&diff=302098981&oldid=302092626</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion</ref> This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
#Liberal elites at [[Wikipedia]] have embraced the ideology of [[Al Gore]]'s [[Global Warming]]. It is with great sadness that [[ClimateGate]] has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page ''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident,'' with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [http://www.junkscience.com/] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; ''a smear campaign'', '' an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen'', '' James Hansen "no effect on the science" '', UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband ''"We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=328281249&oldid=328279458]
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention ''"alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths."'' The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&oldid=337705210]
# Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=338783450]
# Wikipedia's article on the British Actor Sir Alec Guinness repeats a malicious story that has been proven false to suggest that he was a homosexual.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness#Personal_life Wikipedia]</ref> It then suggests that the biography on Guinness by Piers Paul Read confirms that he was bi-sexual. This too is false, although Read examines the rumors and speculates as to Guinness' feelings, there is absolutely no proof that Guinness was homosexual or bi-sexual. Speculation is largely contrieved from his knowing several British actors and directors who were and a rumor started by a woman who mistook John Gielgud as Guinness.
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completly ignoring Northern Irish covservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by it's unoffical slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalising the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unoffical" and often calling it derogetary names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref>. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure. [[User:King1|King1]] 16:26, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

==See Also==
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Federal

2010-06-16T22:37:08Z

CVeritas: copy; link more terms

The '''federal system''' refers to a system of [[government]] in which power is distributed between a central [[authority]] and constituent territorial units.<ref>[[Merriam-Webster]] Online, [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=federal ''Federal'']</ref>

In the [[United States]], the term "'''federal'''" refers to the national government based in [[Washington, D.C.]] The Federal government's responsibility is to govern the entire country, unlike the state and [[local government|local]] levels of [[government]], which have [[jurisdiction]] over only one state or locality (e.g., a [[city]] or [[county]]), respectively.

==See Also==
*[[Federalism]]
*[[Dead List]]
*[[Eighth Circuit]]
*[[Confederation]]
*[[Federal Calendar]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Government]]
[[category:United States Government]]

The Federalist Papers

2010-06-16T22:32:29Z

CVeritas: new, as redirect, to "Federalist Papers"

#REDIRECT [[Federalist Papers]]

James Madison

2010-06-16T22:26:19Z

CVeritas: noted lived near Jefferson; copyedit: fixed "His Madison's", cut lone "]]"

{{President
|image=7648ruy6g.gif
|seq=4
|term_start=March 4, 1809
|term_end=March 4, 1817<ref>http://www.trivia-library.com/a/4th-us-president-james-madison.htm</ref>
|party=Democratic-Republican
|vp=George Clinton
|vp_dates=1809-1812
|2vp=None
|2vp_dates=1812-1813
|3vp=Elbridge Gerry
|3vp_dates=1813-1814
|4vp=None
|4vp_dates=1814-1817
|previous=Thomas Jefferson
|next=James Monroe
|birth_date=March 16, 1751
|birth_place=Port Conway, Virginia
|death_date=June 28, 1836
|death_place=Montpelier, Virginia
|spouse=[[Dolly Todd Madison]]
|religion=[[Episcopalian]]
}}
'''James Madison''' (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836), an American statesman, political theorist, party leader and fourth President of the [[United States]] of America (1809–1817), was one of the most influential [[Founding Fathers]] of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]," Madison played the central role in designing the 1787 document and promoting its ratification. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the [[Federalist Papers]], still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. As a leader in the first Congresses, he drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights." As a political theorist, Madison advanced the theory of [[republicanism]]. Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to limit the powers of special interests, which Madison called ''factions.''<ref>Robert Alan Dahl, "Madisonian Democracy," in Dahl, et al., eds. ''The Democracy Sourcebook'' (MIT Press, 2003), pp. 207-16.</ref> He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption (especially of British origin), and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would ensure [[Republicanism]] in the United States.<ref>Banning, 1995; Kernell, 2003; Riemer, 1954.</ref>

As leader in the House of Representatives, Madison worked closely with President [[George Washington]] to organize the new federal government. Breaking with Treasury Secretary [[Alexander Hamilton]] in 1791, Madison and [[Thomas Jefferson]] organized what they called the ''Republican Party'' (and historians call the [[Democratic-Republican Party]]). The new party opposed Hamilton's financial and foreign policies, especially the national bank and the [[Jay Treaty]]. In 1798 to protest the [[Alien and Sedition Laws]] Madison secretly coauthored, along with Thomas Jefferson, the [[Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions]] that called for states to block federal laws.

As Jefferson's Secretary of State (1801-1809), Madison supervised the [[Louisiana Purchase]], doubling the nation's size, and sponsored the ill-fated [[Embargo of 1807]] to punish British and French violations of American rights. As president, he led the nation into the [[War of 1812]] against Britain in order to uphold American honor against British insults (especially the impressment of American sailors), to protect America's rights to trade with France, and to stop the British aid to Indians who were blocking expansion into the northwest Territory.

Madison had not seriously prepared for war and lacked a strategy or good generals. The war began poorly, as Americans suffered defeat after defeat by smaller forces, but ended on a high note in 1815, after which a new spirit of [[nationalism]] swept the country. During and after the war, Madison reversed many of his positions. By 1815, he supported the creation of the second National Bank, a strong military, and a high tariff to protect the new factories opened during the war.

==Personal life==
James was the oldest of 12 children of James Madison, Sr., and Nelly Conway. The father, an Anglican vestryman, a justice of the peace, and Orange County's leading planter, was the owner of 4,000 acres and about 100 slaves. James attended a local academy and was home schooled, and went off to Princeton (College of New Jersey) in 1769. Although small, frail and sickly, he was a brilliant student who finished the three-year course in two years and stayed on as Princeton's first graduate student. Studying under erudite president [[John Witherspoon]], a Presbyterian divine, Madison absorbed the classics, and the main books in Enlightenment thought.
[[File:Dolley.jpg|thumb|left|200px]]

On September 14, 1794, Madison married [[Dolley Madison|Dolley Payne Todd]], who cut as attractive and vivacious a figure as he did a sickly and anti-social one. Dolley is largely credited with inventing the role of First Lady as political ally and adviser to the president. They had no children.

Both of them were close friends with former President [[Thomas Jefferson]]. They lived on a neighboring hilltop near Jefferson's hilltop estate, [[Monticello]], in Virginia.

==Political career==
Madison served in the Virginia state legislature (1776-79) and became known as a protégé of Jefferson, attaining prominence in state politics; he helped draft the [[Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom]]. Responding to demands from Baptists and Presbyterians, it disestablished the Anglican Church (Church of England), and disclaimed any power of state compulsion in religious matters. He persuaded Virginia to turn over its claims to northwestern territories (consisting of most of modern-day Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) to the [[Continental Congress]].

As delegate to the [[Continental Congress]] (1780-83), Madison was considered a legislative workhorse and a master of parliamentary detail.

==Father of the Constitution==
Back in the Virginia state legislature, Madison welcomed peace, but soon grew alarmed at the fragility of the [[Articles of Confederation]], and especially at the divisiveness of state governments. He strongly advocated a new constitution to overcome this divisiveness. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Madison's draft of the [[Virginia Plan]] and his revolutionary three-branch federal system became the basis for the final plan. Though Madison was a shy man, he was one of the more outspoken members of the Continental Congress. He envisioned a strong federal government that could overrule actions of the states when they were deemed mistaken. His notes were the most detailed record, but he refused to allow them to be published until after his death, leaving commentators and judges puzzled for 50 years over what the authors intended by various provisions.<ref>Wood, 2006, pp. 163-64.</ref>

==The ''Federalist Papers''==
To aid the push for ratification, Madison joined [[Alexander Hamilton]] (and also [[John Jay]]) to write the ''[[The Federalist Papers]]''. These essays that immediately became the single most important interpretation of the Constitution, and remains so among jurists and scholars. Madison a third of them, most famously paper #10, in which he explained how a large country with many different interests and factions could support republican values better than a small country dominated by a few special interests. His interpretation was largely ignored at the time, but in the 20th century became a central part of the pluralist interpretation of American politics.<ref>Kramer, 1999</ref> Madison is often hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for his role in its drafting and ratification. However, he protested the title as being "a credit to which I have no claim... [The Constitution] was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands".<ref> Lance Banning, "James Madison: Federalist," note 1, [http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/banning-paper.html].</ref>

Back in Virginia in 1788, Madison led the fight for ratification of the Constitution at the state's convention, oratorically dueling with [[Patrick Henry]] and other Anti-Federalists who tried to block the nationalistic document. The compromise reached was ratification together with the promise of a Bill of Rights that would be promptly added. All 13 states ratified the new Constitution and it took effect in 1789, as Washington was sworn in as president.

==Author of Bill of Rights ==
Patrick Henry persuaded the Virginia legislature not to elect Madison as one of their first Senators; but Madison was elected by the voters to the new House of Representatives and became a dominant leader from the First Congress (1789-90) through the Fourth Congress (1797-98).

Initially Madison had three main objections to a specific bill of rights:
*it was unnecessary, since it purported to protect against powers that the federal government had not been granted;
* it was dangerous, since enumeration of some rights might be taken to imply the absence of other rights; and
* at the state level, bills of rights had proven to be useless paper barriers against government powers.<ref> Wood, 2006b.</ref>

But the anti-Federalists in many states had demanded a bill of rights in exchange for their support for ratification. Over two hundred proposals were submitted from throughout the country. Madison ignored the proposals for structural change of the government, and synthesized the others into a short list of proposals for the protection of civil rights, such as free speech and habeas corpus. In June 1789 Madison offered a package of twelve proposed amendments to the House. Reversing his previous opposition he hounded his colleagues relentlessly to accept his proposed amendments.<ref>Wood, 2006b.</ref>

By December 1791, ten of Madison's proposed amendments were ratified and became the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the passages of Fourteenth Amendment gave a federal guarantee to federal rights inside the states.

==Opposition to Hamilton==
The chief characteristic of Madison's time in Congress was his work to limit the power of the federal government. Madison never wanted a national government that took an active role and feared that Hamilton and Washington were creating a European type of government with a bureaucracy, a standing army, and a powerful independent executive.<ref>Wood, 2006a, p. 165.</ref>

When Britain and France went to war in 1793 the U.S. was caught in the middle. The 1778 treaty of alliance with France was still in effect, yet most of the new country's trade was with Britain. War with Britain seemed imminent in 1794, as the British seized hundreds of American ships that were trading with French colonies. Madison (in collaboration with Jefferson, who had returned to private life), believed that Britain was weak and America strong, and that a trade war with Britain, although it threatened retaliation by Britain, probably would succeed, and would allow Americans to assert their independence fully. Britain, he charged, "has bound us in commercial manacles, and very nearly defeated the object of our independence". Madison had no fear of British recriminations for "her interests can be wounded almost mortally, while ours are invulnerable". The British West Indies, he maintained, could not live without American foodstuffs, but Americans could easily do without British manufactures. This same faith led him to the conclusion "that it is in our power, in a very short time, to supply all the tonnage necessary for our own commerce".<ref>Paul A. Varg, ''Foreign Policies of the Founding Fathers'' (1963), p. 74.</ref> However, President Washington avoided a trade war and instead Hamilton and Jay secured friendly trade relations with Britain through the [[Jay Treaty]] of 1794. Madison tried and failed to defeat the treaty, and it became a central issue of the emerging [[First Party System]]. All across the country, voters divided for and against the Treaty and other key issues, and thus became Federalists or Republicans.
===Madison vs Hamilton===
Treasury Secretary [[Alexander Hamilton]] built a nationwide network of supporters that became the [[Federalist Party]], and promoted a strong central government with a national bank. Madison and Jefferson organized the "Republican party", in 1793 (historians later called it the [[Democratic-Republican Party]]). It opposed Hamilton's domestic and foreign policies and the Federalists overall as centralizers and pro-British elitists who would undermine republican values. Madison led the unsuccessful attempt to block Hamilton's proposed [[First Bank of the United States|Bank of the United States]], arguing the new Constitution did not explicitly allow the federal government to form a bank.<ref>As early as May 26, 1792, Hamilton complained, "Mr. Madison cooperating with Mr. Jefferson is at the head of a faction decidedly hostile to me and my administration. Hamilton, ''Writings'' (2001), p. 738. On May 5, 1792, Madison told Washington, "with respect to the spirit of party that was taking place ...I was sensible of its existence". ''Madison Letters'' (1865), 1:554.</ref>
===States rights===
Most historians argue that Madison changed radically from a nationally-oriented ally of Hamilton in 1787-88 to a states-rights-oriented opponent of a strong national government by 1795. Madison started with opposing Hamilto; by 1793 he was opposing Washington as well. On most major issues Madison usually lost and Hamilton usually won, notably the National Bank, funding of state and national debts, and support of the [[Jay Treaty]]. (Madison did block the proposal for high tariffs.) Madison's politics remained closely aligned with Jefferson's until the experience of a weak national government during the [[War of 1812]] led Madison to appreciate the need for a stronger central government. He then began to support a national bank, a stronger navy and a standing army. However, other historians, led by Lance Banning and [[Gordon S. Wood]], see more continuity in Madison's views and do not see a sharp break in 1792.

==Secretary of State: 1801-1809==
The main challenge which faced the Jefferson Administration was navigating between the two great empires of Britain and France, which were almost constantly at war. The first great triumph was the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803, made possible when [[Napoleon]] realized he could not defend that vast territory, and it was to France's advantage that Britain not seize it. Madison and President Jefferson reversed party policy to negotiate for the Purchase and then win Congressional approval. Madison tried to maintain neutrality between Britain and France, but at the same time insisted on the legal rights of the U.S. under international law. Neither London nor Paris showed much respect, however. Madison and Jefferson decided on an [[Embargo of 1807|embargo]] to punish Britain and France, forbidding Americans to trade with any foreign nation. The embargo failed as foreign policy, and instead caused massive hardships in the northeastern seaboard, which depended on foreign trade.

Jefferson and Madison looked to the [[yeoman]]--the independent farmer --for virtues that were founded on an agrarian economy like that of Virginia. They were determined to avoid war, because war meant large armies, permanent navies, military virtues in opposition to the yeoman, new taxes, and increases in executive power. The result they feared would weaken liberty and republicanism. But they were not isolationist. Instead Jefferson and Madison put their faith in the power of American commerce to achieve their objectives, though threats like the boycott. The boycotts failed and Madison took a poorly prepared nation to war in 1812. <ref> Smith 2004</ref>

The party's Congressional caucus chose presidential candidates, and Madison was selected in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1808|election of 1808]], easily defeating [[Charles Cotesworth Pinckney]], riding on the coattails of Jefferson's popularity. Congress repealed the failed embargo as Madison took office.

==Presidency 1809–1817==

===The Bank of the United States ===
The twenty year charter of the [[First Bank of the United States]] was scheduled to expire in 1811, the second year of Madison's administration. Madison failed to block the Bank in 1791, and waited for its charter to expire. Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin wanted the bank rechartered, and when the [[War of 1812]] broke out discovered how difficult it was to finance the war without the Bank. Gallatin's successor as Treasury Secretary [[Alexander J. Dallas]] proposed a replacement in 1814, but Madison vetoed the bill in 1815. By late 1815, however, Madison asked Congress for a new bank, which had strong support from the younger, nationalistic republicans such as [[John C. Calhoun]] and [[Henry Clay]], as well as Federalist [[Daniel Webster]]. Madison signed it into law in 1816 and appointed [[William Jones]] as its president.

===War of 1812===
British insults continued, especially the practice of using the Royal Navy to intercept unarmed American merchant ships and "[[impressment|impress]]" (conscript) all sailors who might be British subjects for service in the British navy. Madison's protests were ignored, so he helped stir up public opinion in the west and south for war. One argument was that an American invasion of Canada (that is, modern Ontario) would be easy and would provide a good bargaining chip. (Since 1940 American and Canadian historians have agreed that Americans did not desire to acquire Canadian lands, but to stop British aid to the hostile Indians.) Madison carefully prepared public opinion for what everyone at the time called "Mr. Madison's War", but failed to build up the army, navy, forts, and state militias. After he convinced Congress to declare war, Madison was re-elected President over [[DeWitt Clinton]] but by a smaller margin than in 1808. Historians in 2006 ranked Madison's failure to avoid war as the sixth worst presidential mistake ever made.<ref name = "CTV">[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060218/presidential_errors_060218/20060218?hub=World CTV]</ref>

[[Image:1812bloody.jpg|thumb|400px|American cartoon 1812, Madison gives King George a black eye and bloody nose, referring to an American naval victory in 1813.]]

In the ensuing [[War of 1812]], the British and their Indian allies won numerous victories, including the capture of Detroit after the American general there surrendered to a smaller force without a fight, and a British raid burned the White House. The British alliance with the western Indians proved a failure, as the [[Battle of Lake Erie]] in 1813 secured American control of the west, [[Tecumseh]] was killed, and his Indian coalition destroyed at the Battle of the Thames. A standoff was reached on the Canadian border, as Americans controlled Lake Erie and the British controlled Lake Ontario after a ship-building race. The British sent a major invasion force into New York but Americans sank the supporting fleet and the British retreated to Canada in 1814. At sea, the British blockaded the entire American coastline, cutting off both foreign trade and domestic trade between ports. Economic hardship was severe in New England, but entrepreneurs built factories that soon became the basis of the industrial revolution in America.

Madison faced formidable obstacles--a divided cabinet, a factious party, a recalcitrant Congress, obstructionist governors, and amazingly incompetent generals, together with militia who refused to fight outside their states. Most serious was lack of unified popular support. There were serious threats of disunion from New England, which engaged in massive smuggling to Canada and refused to provide financial support or soldiers.<ref>Stagg, 1983.</ref> However [[Andrew Jackson]] in the South and [[William Henry Harrison]] in the West destroyed the main Indian threats by 1813.

After the apparent defeat of [[Napoleon]] in 1814, both the British and Americans were exhausted, the causes of the war had been forgotten, the Indian issue was resolved, and it was time for peace. New England Federalists, however, set up a defeatist [[Hartford Convention]] that discussed secession. The [[Treaty of Ghent]] ended the war in 1815. There were no territorial gains on either side as both sides returned to ''status quo ante bellum'', that is, the previous boundaries. The [[Battle of New Orleans]], in which [[Andrew Jackson]] defeated the British regulars, was fought fifteen days after the treaty was signed but before the news of the signing reached New Orleans.

With peace finally established, the U.S. was swept by a sense of euphoria and national achievement in finally securing solid independence from Britain. In the U.S., the Federalist Party collapsed and eventually disappeared from politics, as an [[Era of Good Feeling]] emerged with a much lower level of political fear and vituperation, although political contention certainly continued.

===Postwar===
Although Madison had accepted the necessity of a Hamiltonian national bank, an effective taxation system based on tariffs, a standing professional army and a strong navy, he drew the line at internal improvements as advocated by his Treasury Secretary [[Albert Gallatin]]. In his last act before leaving office, Madison vetoed on states' rights grounds a bill for "internal improvements", including roads, bridges, and canals:

<blockquote>Having considered the bill ... I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States.... The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified ... in the ... Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.<ref name = "Tax">[http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/981.html Tax Foundation]</ref></blockquote>

Madison rejected the view of Congress that the General Welfare Clause justified the bill, stating:

<blockquote>Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.</blockquote>

Madison urged a variety of measures that he felt were "best executed under the national authority", including federal support for roads and canals that would "bind more closely together the various parts of our extended confederacy".

==Retirement==
When Madison left office in 1817, he retired to Montpelier, his tobacco plantation in Virginia; not far from Jefferson's [[Monticello]]. Madison was then 65 years old. Dolley, who thought they would finally have a chance to travel to Paris, was 49. But as with both Washington and Jefferson, Madison left the presidency a poorer man than when he entered, due to the steady financial collapse of his plantation. Some historians speculate that his mounting debt was one of the chief reasons why he refused to allow his notes on the Constitution Convention, or its official records which he possessed, to be published in his lifetime.<ref> "He knew the value of his notes, and wanted them to bring money to his estate for Dolley's use as his plantation failed -- he was hoping for one hundred thousand dollars from the sale of his papers, of which the notes were the gem." Wills, 2002, p. 163.</ref>. Madison's financial troubles and deteriorating mental and physical health would continue to consume him. By the 1830s, troubled by debts that were threatening to bankrupt him, Madison's mental agitation led to physical collapse. <ref>McCoy, 1989, p.151.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1829, at the age of seventy-eight, Madison was chosen as a representative to the constitutional convention in Richmond for the revising of the Virginia state constitution; this was to be Madison's last appearance as a legislator and constitutional draftsman.

The issue of greatest importance at this convention was [[apportionment]]. The western districts of Virginia complained that they were under-represented because the state constitution apportioned voting districts by population, and the count included slaves even though slaves could not vote. Westerners had few slaves, while the Eastern planters had many, and thus the vote of a white easterner outweighed the vote of a white westerner.

Madison, who in his prime was known as "the Great Legislator", tried to effect a compromise, such as the 3/5 ratio for a slave then used by the U.S. Constitution, but to no avail. Eventually, the eastern planters prevailed. Slaves would continue to be counted toward their masters' districts. Madison was crushed at the failure of Virginians to resolve the issue more equably. "The Convention of 1829, we might say, pushed Madison steadily to the brink of self-delusion, if not despair. The dilemma of slavery undid him."<ref>Ibid., p. 252.</ref>

Although his health had now almost failed, he managed to produce several memoranda on political subjects, including an essay against the appointment of chaplains for Congress and the armed forces, on the grounds that this produced religious exclusion, but not political harmony.<ref>He was tempted to admit chaplains for the navy, which might well have no other opportunity for worship. The [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html text] of the memoranda</ref>

Madison lived on until 1836, increasingly ignored by the new leaders of the American polity. He was the last remaining signatory of the United States Constitution.

As historian Garry Wills wrote:
<blockquote>
Madison's claim on our admiration does not rest on a perfect consistency, any more than it rests on his presidency. He has other virtues.... As a framer and defender of the Constitution he had no peer.... The finest part of Madison's performance as president was his concern for the preserving of the Constitution.... No man could do everything for the country – not even Washington. Madison did more than most, and did some things better than any. That was quite enough.<ref>Wills, 2002, p. 164.</ref>
</blockquote>

== Views on national government==
Madison was the main drafter of the Constitution at the 1787 Philadelphia convention; his Notes remain the best source of the debates at this secret meeting. With [[Alexander Hamilton]] and one other he coauthored [[Federalist Papers]] of 1788, which helped convince New York to ratify the Constitution. The ''Federalist Papers'' remain to this day the most important commentary of the Constitution.

Like other nationalists Madison was disgusted with the weak national government of the 1780s--it was badly organized (with no president and no courts), and lacked the power to raise taxes. It would be unable to defend the new nation in a major war. Hamilton therefore was a strong proponent of powerful national government at this point. (He changed his mind in the 1790s.)

In the two greatest of all the Federalist Papers, numbers 10 and 51, Madison set forth his “republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.” Those diseases, in his diagnosis, were the diseases attendant on factions. He feared, above all else, factions that might mobilize a plebeian majority capable of invading the rights, especially the property rights, of rich minorities. Since he saw no way to remove the causes of such factions, he set about to control their effects. The crux of that control was his brilliant realization that a large republic would forestall overbearing majorities more effectively than the small republics beloved of all previous democratic theorists. But the precondition of that realization was his distinction between two types of factions.
===Idea of a party system===
Hofstadter (1969) finds the “idea of a party system” in the pluralistic, antiparty attitudes in the young Republic, especially those of [[James Madison]], primary author of the Constitution (1788) and cofounder of the Republican Party (1793). Americans did not respect English parties of the 18th-century, which were shifting coalitions of politicians in Parliament and not based on the opinions of voters. Colonial American "pre-parties" practiced a vigorous, experience-yielding factionalism. However, deferential colonial politics (as in Virginia) elected men not for their proposals but for their reputation. Liberty and [[republicanism]], the basic values of the Founding Fathers, were to be protected by legislative checks since the checks of the political process were suspect. Ideally, two houses, rather than two parties, would check each other. In advocating the Constitution, antiparty thinkers such as Madison actually were establishing the major force in creating two great parties. Madison envisioned a pluralism among the parties rather than within them. He did not foresee parties as great, bland, enveloping coalitions. Because he feared the tyranny of a majority faction, Madison sought pluralism through a large republic and through majorities made up of weak, precarious coalitions. His view of pluralism owed much to his understanding of the liberties of religious dissent; parties were to resemble the multiplicity of religious sects, as in Virginia.<ref> Richard Hofstadter, ''The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840'' (1969). </ref>

==the Right to Bear Arms ==
In the [[Federalist Papers]] #46, he described how essential the right to bear arms (later embodied in the [[Second Amendment]]) is to overall freedom from tyranny:<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed46.htm Federalist No. 46] (emphasis added)</ref>

:Besides '''the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation''', the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, '''the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms'''. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

==The War of 1812==
Madison is considered to have been an inadequate President. He failed to resole diplomatically the continuing British seizure of American ships. Instead, he pushed for an unnecessary war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. Madison's wife, Dolly, is famously remembered for saving a [[portraits|portrait]] of [[George Washington]] just before the British burned the [[White House]]. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is viewed as a needless mistake, but at the time the [[Federalist Party]]'s opposition to the war (and to Madison's [[Democratic-Republican Party]]) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year.

==Madison on Religion and Government==

Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican [[Thomas Jefferson]], were less tolerant of religion in government than other [[Founding Fathers]].<ref> Madison did NOT write the false quote:
:"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.... We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." </ref> Like Jefferson, Madison favored [[separation of church and state]].<ref>[http://www.helium.com/items/501599-the-case-for-separation-of-church-and-state The case for separation of church and state by Michelle Mueller]</ref>

Decades later, long after the [[Constitution]] was ratified and after Madison largely failed as a president, he wrote letters reflecting less of an embrace of religion. The letters may have been written with the opinions of the recipients in mind:

<blockquote>"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."<ref>Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821.</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?"<ref>Detached Memorandum, circa 1820.</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"In the papal system, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of Government." <ref>[[God and the Oval Office]] by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2002.</ref></blockquote>

:"The rights of persons and property, are the objects, for the protection of which Govt was instituted." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=3vh3OUHx-xIC&pg=PA193&dq=The+rights+of+persons+and+property,+are+the+objects,+for+the+protection+of+which+Govt+was+instituted.&ei=aNUIStyyII2oyATH5YWCDw James Madison and the Future of Limited Government‎ - Page 193]</ref>

===Bibliography===
====Biographies====
* Banning, Lance. "James Madison" ''American National Biography Online'' (2000)
* Brant, Irving. "James Madison and His Times," ''American Historical Review.'' 57,4(July, 1952), 853-870.[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28195207%2957%3A4%3C853%3AJMAHT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R online at JSTOR]
* Brant, Irving. ''James Madison'', 6 vols., (Bobbs-Merrill, 1941-1961). most detailed scholarly biography.
* Brant, Irving. ''The Fourth President; a Life of James Madison'' (Bobbs-Merrill, 1970). one-volume condensation of his series.
* Hunt, Gaillard. ''The Life of James Madison.'' 1902. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6010967 online edition] useful details but outdated interpretations
* Ketcham, Ralph. ''James Madison: A Biography'' (Macmillan, 1971). standard scholarly biography.
* Rakove, Jack. ''James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic'', 2nd ed., (Longman, 2002).
* Riemer, Neal. ''James Madison'' (Washington Square Press, 1968).
* Wills, Garry. ''James Madison'' (Times Books, 2002). short bio.

====Political history====
* Adams, Henry. ''History of the United States during the [First and Second] Administrations of James Madison'' (1890-91; Library of America, 1986).
** Wills, Garry. ''Henry Adams and the Making of America'' (Houghton Mifflin, 2005). a close reading of Adams.
* Banning, Lance. ''The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology'' (1978)
* Banning, Lance. ''The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic'' (Cornell Univ. Press, 1995). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103677309 online edition]; [http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=HEB00509.0001.001 online ACLS History e-Book]. Available only to subscribing institutions.
**Gibson, Alan. "Lance Banning's Interpretation Of James Madison: An Appreciation And Critique." ''Political Science Reviewer'' 2003 32: 269-317. Issn: 0091-3715 Fulltext: at Ebsco
* Brant, Irving. ''James Madison and American Nationalism''. (1968).
* Brown, Roger H. ''The Republic in Peril: 1812'' (1964), stresses intense hostility between partisans [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100695976 online edition]
* Brown, Stuart Gerry. ''The First Republicans: Political Philosophy and Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson and Madison.'' (1954). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11814508 online edition]
* Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick. ''The Age of Federalism'' (1995). most advanced analysis of the politics of the 1790s. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5000304374 online edition]
* Koch, Adrienne. ''Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collaboration.'' (1950) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8520360 online edition]
* Labunski, Richard. ''James Madison and the Struggle for a Bill of Rights.'' Oxford U. Pr., 2006. 337 pp.
* Leibiger, Stuart. ''Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic.'' U Press of Virginia, 1999. 284 pp. [http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=13794971448315 online review]
* McCoy, Drew R. ''The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America'' (W.W. Norton, 1980). mostly economic issues.
** McCoy, ''The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy'' (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989). JM after 1816.
* Miller, John C. ''The Federalist Era: 1789-1801'' (1960), survey of political history
* Peterson, Merrill D. ''Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography'' (1975) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=82266123 online edition]
* Rutland, Robert A. ''The Presidency of James Madison'' (Univ. Press of Kansas, 1990). scholarly overview of his two terms.
** Rutland, ed. ''James Madison and the American Nation, 1751-1836: An Encyclopedia'' (Simon & Schuster, 1994). highly detailed coverage of Madison and the era
* Sharp, James Roger. ''American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis'' (1993), political narrative of 1790s
* Skeen, Carl Edward. ''1816: America Rising'' (1993) popular history
* Smelser, Marshall. ''The Democratic Republic 1801-1815'' (1968) standard scholarly survey of politics and diplomacy.
* Stagg, John C.A., "James Madison and the 'Malcontents': The Political Origins of the War of 1812," ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 3rd ser. 33,4(Oct. 1976), 557-585. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28197610%293%3A33%3A4%3C557%3AJMAT%22T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X online].
** Stagg, "James Madison and the Coercion of Great Britain: Canada, the West Indies, and the War of 1812," in ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 3rd ser. 38,1(Jan., 1981), 3-34. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28198101%293%3A38%3A1%3C3%3AJMATCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W online].
** Stagg, ''Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American Republic, 1783-1830'' (Princeton, 1983).
* Trees, Andrew S. ''The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 208 pp. compares Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams
* Wood, Gordon S., "Is There a 'James Madison Problem'?" in Wood, ''Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different'' (Penguin Press, 2006a), 141-72.
** Wood, "Without Him, No Bill of Rights," ''The New York Review of Books'' (November 30, 2006b).

====Political theory====
* Kernell, Samuel, ed. ''James Madison: the Theory and Practice of Republican Government'' (Stanford Univ. Press, 2003).
* Kramer, Larry D. "Madison's Audience." ''Harvard Law Review.'' 112#3 1999. pp 611+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96849383 online edition]
* Matthews, Richard K., ''If Men Were Angels: James Madison and the Heartless Empire of Reason'' (Univ. Press of Kansas, 1995), political philosophy
* Morgan, Robert J. ''James Madison on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.'' Greenwood Press. 1988. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26239686 online edition]
* Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. "James Madison's Principle of Religious Liberty," ''American Political Science Review'' 97,1(2003), 17-32.
* Read, James H. ''Power versus Liberty: Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Jefferson'' (2000). political philosophy
* Riemer, Neal. "The Republicanism of James Madison," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 69,1(1954), 45-64 in JSTOR.
** Riemer, ''James Madison : Creating the American Constitution'' (Congressional Quarterly, 1986).
* Rosen, Gary. ''American Compact: James Madison and the Problem of Founding'' (1999), political philosophy
* Samples, John, ed. ''James Madison and the Future of Limited Government.'' (Cato Institute, 2002), essays by libertarian and conservative scholars. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103202615 online edition]
* Sheehan, Colleen A. "The Politics of Public Opinion: James Madison's 'Notes on Government'," ''William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser.'' 49,3(1992), 609-627. in JSTOR.
** Sheehan, "Madison and the French Enlightenment," ''William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser.'' 59,4(Oct. 2002), 925-956. in JSTOR.
** Sheehan, "Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion," ''American Political Science Review'' 98,3(2004), 405-424. in JSTOR.
** Sheehan, "Madison Avenues," ''Claremont Review of Books'' (Spring 2004), [http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/sheehan.html online].
** Sheehan, "Public Opinion and the Formation of Civic Character in Madison's Republican Theory," ''Review of Politics'' 67,1(Winter 2005), 37-48.
* Smith, Robert W. ''Keeping the Republic: Ideology and Early American Diplomacy.'' Northern Illinois U. Press, 2004. 196 pp. [http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=169311117567023 online review]

===Primary sources===
* James Madison, ''James Madison: Writings 1772-1836.'' (Library of America, 1999). over 900 pages of letters, speeches and reports. [ISBN 1-883011-66-3].
* Ketcham, Ralph, ed., Selected Writings of James Madison. ( Hackett, 2006. xxxii, 396 pp. isbn 978-0-87220-695-3.)
* James Madison, ''Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison'' (1987); [ISBN 0393304051] ([http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm]
* James Madison, ''Letters & Other Writings Of James Madison Fourth President Of The United States'', 4 vols., (1865); called the ''Congress edition''. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00239122&id=pb2s8DG_2WUC&pg=RA1-PR11&lpg=RA1-PR11&dq=Letters+%26+Other+Writings+Of+James+Madison+Fourth+President online edition]
* William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., ''The Papers of James Madison'' (U. of Chicago Press, 1962-). the definitive multivolume edition. [http://www.virginia.edu/pjm/description1.htm 29 volumes have been published, with 16+ more volumes planned.]
* Gaillard Hunt, ed. ''The Writings of James Madison'', 9 vols., (1900-1910). [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00752381&id=ri4fEe_y99kC&pg=RA3-PR21&lpg=RA3-PR21&dq=Writings+of+James+Madison:+comprising+his+public+papers online edition]
* Marvin Myers, ed. ''Mind of the Founder: Sources of the Political Thought of James Madison'' (1973) [ISBN 0-87451-201-8].
* James M. Smith, ed. ''The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826''. 3 vols., (1995).
* Jacob E. Cooke, ed. ''The Federalist'' (1961).

*[http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/madison Extensive essay on James Madison and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs]
*[http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/james+madison Quotations by James Madison] at Liberty-Tree.ca
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/ The James Madison Papers, 1723-1836] from the Manuscript Division at the [[Library of Congress]], approximately 12,000 items captured in some 72,000 digital images.
*[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/madispap.htm The Papers of James Madison] from the Avalon Project
*[http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html Official White House page for James Madison]
*[http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/madison_archives.htm Madison Archives]
* {{Gutenberg author| id=James+Madison | name=James Madison}}
*[http://www.jamesmadisonmus.org/ James Madison Museum]
*[http://www.montpelier.org/ Montpelier-Home of James Madison]
* [http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html ''James Madison and the Social Utility of Religion: Risks vs. Rewards'', James Hutson, Library of Congress]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Madison, James}}

[[Category:Founding Fathers]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Early National U.S.]]
[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]
[[Category:War of 1812]]
[[category:Religion and Politics]]

Federalism

2010-06-16T22:09:58Z

CVeritas: copyedit; linked "William Rehnquist"

'''Federalism''' is the system of co-sovereigns in the United States, as well as in other countries, with a national or federal government having power along with state governments over the same territory and citizenry. More specifically, federalism involves dual sovereignty, or the allocation of power between the federal government and the states under the [[U.S. Constitution]], with overlapping authority.

The states "surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government," but retained "'a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.'" ''Printz v. United States'', 521 U.S. 898, 918-19 (quoting ''[[The Federalist]]'', No. 39, at 245, [[James Madison]]). This dual sovereignty is "reflected throughout the Constitution's text." ''Id.'' at 919. The continued existence of state sovereignty is "implicit . . . in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones." ''Id.''

When the national government was young, federalism stood for a stronger federal government. After the federal government became very strong, however, federalism has stood for keeping the federal government out of matters traditionally within the domain of state government, such as education, family law, medical care, and local law enforcement.

Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] was a proponent of (modern) federalism and curbing the overreaching of the federal government. His leading decision was a 5-4 ruling in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which invalidated on federalism grounds a federal law prohibiting the carrying of firearms within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. The leading [[Supreme Court]] decisions in favor of federalism, nearly all written by Justice or Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], are:

* ''[[United States v. Morrison]]'' (2000)
* ''[[Alden v. Maine]]'' (1999) (opinion by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]])
* ''[[Seminole Tribe v. Fla.]]'' (1996)
* ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'' (1995)
* ''[[National League of Cities v. Usery]]'' (1975)

Justice Kennedy, who as of 1997 was the pivotal fifth or "swing" vote on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], has also embraced federalism. "[F]ederalism was the unique contribution of the Framers to political science and political theory. Though on the surface the idea may seem counter-intuitive, it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."<ref> ''United States v. Lopez'', 514 U.S. 549, 576 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Friendly, “Federalism: A Foreword,” 86 Yale L. J. 1019 (1977) and G. Wood, ''The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787'', pp. 524-532, 564 (1969).)</ref>

Since that ruling, there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts limiting federal power to interfere with state sovereignty in fields of traditional state control. For example, The Fifth Circuit held that "[w]here Congress aims to change the usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government, it must make unmistakably clear its intention to do so in the statute’s language." ''Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Comm.'', 440 F.3d 683, 690 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing ''[[Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police]]'', 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) and ''[[Gonzales v. Oregon]]'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), emphasis added).

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:United States Political Terms]]

User talk:CVeritas

2010-06-16T17:18:26Z

CVeritas: reading

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)}}

  Thanks. I am reading the Useful links. -[[User:CVeritas|CVeritas]] 13:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

User:CVeritas

2010-06-16T17:14:49Z

CVeritas: new user page

This is the user page for User:CVeritas.