Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Cult

2010-10-07T21:07:55Z

CainR:

A '''cult''' is a term for a [[religion]] or community of belief that is regarded as illegitimate, heretical, or far outside mainstream beliefs. Although some consider it to be a statement of opinion, "cult" has well-defined meanings.

Some religions labeled "cults" are dangerous, and in rare but well-publicized cases have proven to be fatal, such as Jim Jones' group in the late 1970s in Guyana (see [[Jonestown Massacre]]).

== Sect vs. Cult ==

Strictly speaking, the terms "cult" and "sect" are not synonymous, although some people use the two terms interchangeably.
Although many groups consider themselves sects, naturally no group considers itself to be a cult.

== Definitions of "cult" ==

In a general sense, a cult is a group which exercises mind control over its followers.<ref name="def">[http://www.cultwatch.com/about.html About Cultwatch] [http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_1 What is a Cult?] (Watchman Fellowship) [http://www.cults.co.nz/cultfaq/index.php#whatisacult Cult FAQ] (Cults.co.nz)</ref>

In a [[Christianity|Christian]] sense, a cult is a group which claims to be Christian but which has major doctrinal differences to normal Christianity.<ref name="def" />
{{QuoteBox|The word "cult" is not in the Bible but its direct corollary is heresy or heretic. Other Biblical terms are false teachers, false prophets and false brethren.<ref>[http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_1 What is a Cult?] (Watchman Fellowship)</ref>}}

[[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart list typical characteristics of cults, although not all cults have all these characteristics.<ref>McDowell, Josh, and Stewart, Don, "Handbook of Today's Religions", Here's Life, 1983, ISBN 978-0840735010</ref>
* They claim to have a new revelation from God.
* They claim to have an exclusive interpretation of Scripture.
* They have a source of authority that supercedes the Bible.
* They have a view of Jesus contrary to biblical teaching.
* They reject orthodox Christianity as having departed from what it should be.
* They say one thing publicly but something different internally.
* They reject or have a distorted view of the [[trinity]].
* They keep changing their teaching.
* They have a strong leader who considers himself the messenger of God.
* They require "works", and never teach that salvation is simply by placing one's faith in Christ.
* They make false prophecies.

=== Catholic usage ===
In the [[Catholic]] Church, 'cult' can also be used to describe a follower's particular devotion to a [[saint]] or another aspect of the faith, eg the cult of [[St Mary]] or of the [[Holy Cross]]<ref>For example at [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/virg/hd_virg.htm The Cult of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages]</ref>. This usage does not have the negative connotations of the more common meaning described on this page. It is possible that it is less used in the present day to avoid confusion with dangerous cults.

== Examples ==

There have been cults which have claimed to be [[Christian]], as well as cults which claim some other religious affiliation, or no affiliation at all. One notable example of a cult is the "People's Temple" operated by [[Jim Jones]]. Jones' insistence that all his true followers drink poisoned fruit punch led to the deaths of 913 of his converts at their enclave of [[Jonestown]] in [[Guyana]]. Atheism is also, arguably, a cult.

== "Deprogramming" ==

The process of attempting to "rescue" people from cults, and reverse perceived or actual mind control, is known as [[deprogramming]], and is controversial from both a legal and social perspective.

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

== External links ==
* [http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome Watchman Fellowship] (According to [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ ApologeticsIndex], "Considered by many to be the foremost Christian countercult and apologetics ministry")
* [http://www.cults.co.nz/ Cults.co.nz]
* [http://www.cultwatch.com/ Cultwatch.com]
* [http://www.raullopez.org/moxon.htm Did Scientology Strike Back?] Article from June 1997 issue of ''American Lawyer'' about [[Scientology|Scientology's]] takeover of the Cult Awareness Network.
* [http://www.cesnur.org/ CESNUR] Center for Studies on New Religions
[[category:psychology]]
[[category:cults]]

Talk:Teleprompter

2010-10-07T21:00:06Z

CainR:

What exactly is wrong with Obama using a teleprompter? He can't really be expected to memorize evry single speech his gives.--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 14:38, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

:Cain, if that is your real name, it's not that he uses a teleprompter. It's that he over relies on teleprompters. He brings it out for meetings in the White House. He brings them to a sixth grade class to speak. Did you every see Gov. Chris Cristie use a teleprompter? No, because he knows what he'll say. It's not some scripted message from a staffer. Obama is just a pathetic empty suit.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
::Please tell me, what does my name have to do with anything here? Why even bring it up? And again, so what if he uses it for speeches. Would you prefer he look down at a page every five seconds? It is simply a method for him to read a prepared speech as most US presidents have done. I dislike Obama as much as the next person, but please stick with legitimate critiscisms.--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 17:00, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Teleprompter

2010-10-07T18:38:26Z

CainR: Created page with 'What exactly is wrong with Obama using a teleprompter? He can't really be expected to memorize evry single speech his gives.--~~~~'

What exactly is wrong with Obama using a teleprompter? He can't really be expected to memorize evry single speech his gives.--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 14:38, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Classroom prayer

2010-10-05T20:48:50Z

CainR: Undo revision 821640 by TK (Talk) obvious things shouldnt need a reference dude, but here ya go

'''Classroom prayer''' is teacher-led, state-sanctioned [[prayer]] in schools. The Supreme Court case [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) banned classroom prayer from [[public schools]] in the [[United States]], and in Florida in 2009 school administrators are being prosecuted for praying at a school-affiliated, adult-only event.<ref>http://www.baptistmessenger.com/story/30D869A1C3EB8104A87DD4CA8659031D</ref> Classroom prayer has been banned in [[government]] schools in most other Western European countries also.

Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom. Some language teachers at religious schools teach the students the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary in the respective language(s) and begin each day's instruction with one or the other.

Christian [[homeschooling]] classes, in contrast, often begin with a classroom prayer and the students benefit enormously from it.

Some private or religious schools hold religious assemblies, including religious services such as the Roman Catholic Mass, that permit prayer outside of the classroom, away from intellectual pursuits.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in [[U.S.]] public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' banned school prayer, citing the [[First Amendment]]'s prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion a precedent for its ruling. The UK has a little-observed legal requirement that all pupils "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship," except where the parent of the pupil has asked for the pupil to be excused from this.<ref> [http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980031_en_7#pt2-ch6 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 part 2 chapter 6]</ref>

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support a nominally-secular but effectively-atheistic position for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], echoing the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists,<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref> though no such phrase exists in the actual text of the [[First Amendment]] (the relevant part of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]).

It has been proven that if classroom prayer was allowed, crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity would all drop. <ref>http://www.helium.com/items/1792560-the-impact-of-banning-prayer-from-the-public-school-classroom </ref>

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on February 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On February 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over 'separation of church and state.' Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies have appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

Classroom prayer

2010-10-05T19:21:59Z

CainR:

'''Classroom prayer''' is teacher-led, state-sanctioned [[prayer]] in schools. The Supreme Court case [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) banned classroom prayer from [[public schools]] in the [[United States]], and in Florida in 2009 school administrators are being prosecuted for praying at a school-affiliated, adult-only event.<ref>http://www.baptistmessenger.com/story/30D869A1C3EB8104A87DD4CA8659031D</ref> Classroom prayer has been banned in [[government]] schools in most other Western European countries also.

Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom. Some language teachers at religious schools teach the students the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary in the respective language(s) and begin each day's instruction with one or the other.

Christian [[homeschooling]] classes, in contrast, often begin with a classroom prayer and the students benefit enormously from it.

Some private or religious schools hold religious assemblies, including religious services such as the Roman Catholic Mass, that permit prayer outside of the classroom, away from intellectual pursuits.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in [[U.S.]] public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' banned school prayer, citing the [[First Amendment]]'s prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion a precedent for its ruling. The UK has a little-observed legal requirement that all pupils "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship," except where the parent of the pupil has asked for the pupil to be excused from this.<ref> [http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980031_en_7#pt2-ch6 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 part 2 chapter 6]</ref>

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support a nominally-secular but effectively-atheistic position for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], echoing the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists,<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref> though no such phrase exists in the actual text of the [[First Amendment]] (the relevant part of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]).

It has been proven that if classroom prayer was allowed, crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity would all drop.

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on February 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On February 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over 'separation of church and state.' Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies have appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-10-04T17:31:45Z

CainR:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of patogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of patogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appeas to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated

2010-10-04T17:30:07Z

CainR:

==Yes==
I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much space as a long page of heated, footnoted, scholarly debate. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 14:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
:totally agree, although you should put enough edits in that it doesn't matter, but it is a bit mean (although they just block people for other reasons while debating)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I absolutely agree that the 90/10 rule serves only as a rationalization for the arbitrary banning of users who present legitimate arguments and foster debate within the conservapedia community. We have all seen that the majority of users don't abide by the 90/10 rule (including Sysops and admin). This rule serves only as a means to authoritatively monitor the site. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course it does. It's just another way to silence debate and give an excuse to block those who are a problem. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

yep, its only original pupose may have come from good ideals however, now its become a false pretense

Yes, it seems a convenient way to kick off people who aren't vandals and are making legitimate oppositing points. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Problematical. If Conservapedia does not have some means of keeping the Wikipedia fanatics off it, won't it just turn into a clone of Wikipedia? What would be useful is for anything included in an article's text to have an ongoing percentage-user-agreement-indicator. Speaking as someone who has been blocked from Wikipedia merely for making contributions that were polite, factual but against its agenda, I think that their system is hypocritical. Their homepage announces that anybody can edit it. Yet there are anonymous "administrators" who promptly block, silence and censor anybody whose views they disagree with. Just below what I am writing here on Cpedia it says that contributions may be "edited, altered or removed by other contributors". What then is the point of contributing knowledge?
I definitely think there is room on the web for ALTERNATIVE articles on a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are overtly political and religious. Is there any such thing as objective truth? Good question. Meanwhile, what we need is CHOICE. When I search for something on the internet, I search using its name and add "-Wikipedia" .[[User:HenriettaVanLaer|HenriettaVanLaer]] 07:52, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Wasn't Conservapedia created as a learning resource? Openly debating is the best way to learn because it forces you to really look at your arguments and justify them. If you want to become a faster swimmer, would you jump into a river and swim with the current or against it?--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:30, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
==No==
The purpose is to encourage development and growth of CP. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum or chat room, and although some debate over articles can be necessary and welcome, to allow endless round-the-block-and-back-again arguments is counter-productive, does not resolve disputes, and is a distraction from the main purpose of the site. Also, the 90/10 rule is quite generous to 'talkers' as it stands. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:Exactly. This is not AIM, this is an encyclopedia. [[User:JY23|#1denverfan]] 20:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Liberal logic

2010-10-04T17:24:25Z

CainR:

'''Liberal logic''' is an oxymoron used to describe arguments made by some [[liberal]]s that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]])
# Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
# Frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[intelligent design]] while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
#Insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:
*jumping off the Empire State Building
*anorexia
*drunk driving
*smoking crack or meth
*child molestation
*Shall I keep going?...
Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade." </ref>
# Personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
# Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.</ref>
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
# No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# Belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves.
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# Highly implausible assumption like "if [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis, then would you support it?" (without any consideration of alternatives).
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]].
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# The belief that, although carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.
# Requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# Claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>
# Claiming that premarital sex is acceptable and normal.
# Claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,<ref>http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766</ref> when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# Doing away with tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.
# Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.
# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
# Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism
# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>
# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>
# Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
# Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, except when they are talking about the writers of the [[Bible]].
# Many liberals claim that even if Obama wasn't born in America (which he certainly wasn't) then he should still be president.
# Claiming that divine creation is “illogical” but creation from a spontaneous explosion of absolutely nothing at all “makes perfect sense”.
# Failing to respect (and sometimes utterly disrespecting, such as in flag desecration) the United States of America in general while continuing their residency herein and actively demanding the benefits and liberties that come with being a citizen.
# Claiming that Christianity is not a form of diversity while praising Islam for this same reason. Later (whenever it benefits them), liberals will compare the two, claiming that few differences exist between them.
# Dodging statistics when doing so will favor the liberal agenda. A clear example of this is claiming that capital punishment is too expensive to taxpayers while they allow illegal immigrants to fly under the radar.
# [[Cherry picking]] [[democracy]]: Liberals will laud the wisdom of the people when democracy produces a liberal result, but when it produces a conservative result, liberals will demand [[judicial activism]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Liberalism}}
[[category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:oxymoron]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Light year

2010-10-01T14:06:55Z

CainR:

A '''light year''' is the distance light travels in one year in a vacuum.
It is a measure of distance used in popular science for distances to great too express in kilometers or miles.

Professional [[astronomer]]s prefer to use the [[parsec]] (approximately 3.26 light years) instead of the light year.

The light year is easily derived from the speed of light which is about 300,000,000 meters per second = <math>3x10^8</math>m/s.

A light year can then be calculated to be about <math>3.00x10^8</math>m/s times 3600s times 24 times 365 = <math>9.46x10^{12}</math> kilometers, or <math>5.9x10^{12}</math> miles (5900 billion miles). 
(To put this in perspective: a person would have to live 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds to reach the age of '''1 billion''' seconds-old.)<ref>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58739.html</ref>

The distance in light years is equal to the time a light wave needs to cover that distance<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> . Many objects in the universe are more than 10,000 light years away, giving rise to the [[starlight problem]] as well as the Horizon Problem in the Big Bang Model of the Universe.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:astronomy]]
[[category:units of Measurement]]

Third World

2010-09-29T12:53:37Z

CainR:

During the [[Cold War]] period '''Third World''' referred to countries which didn't align themselves to either of the power blocks the [[US]] and its allies and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] and its allies. These nations formed the non-aligned movement. It was usually applied to the mostly developing nations of Africa, Latin America, and Asian countries.<ref>The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989</ref>

Since that time, third world refers to developing and undeveloped countries which have large scale poverty and low levels of economic development. Many Third world countries are dictatorships, however many are also democracies.Regardless in many third world countries government corruption is rampant.<ref>http://media.transparency.org/imaps/cpi2009/</ref> Some countries are disputed as to whether or not they are Third World. Countries such as India, China, and Brazil often straddle the line. These countries have a high economic growth and are quite wealthy, yet poverty is still widespread.

== References ==

<References/>
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Cold War]]

Alfred the Great

2010-09-29T05:19:01Z

CainR:

[[Image:Alfred.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Alfred the Great]]
'''Alfred the Great''' lived from 849 to 899 AD and was King of [[Wessex]] who defended [[England]] against the [[Vikings]].

There is a well known story of a king who, after being defeated in battle, was forced to take refuge in the marshes and act as a serving man for a poor woman living there. One day the woman asked him to watch some cakes she was baking, and the hapless king assented. The king was quickly lost in his thoughts, and after some time awoke with a start to see the woman gesticulating towards the charred cakes and rating him for his carelessness and lack of thrift.

The King was Alfred the Great, who ruled Wessex A.D. 871-899. It is among the greatest ironies of history that, as the historian and author G.A. Henty once remarked, ''“The incident of the burned cakes is, of all the actions of a great and glorious reign, the most prominent.”'' In fact, the story of King Alfred and his followers and their desperate struggle to defend their homeland is among the greatest stories of perseverance, valor and wisdom in all of recorded history.

It was in the year 870, when Alfred ruled as co-regent with his brother Ethelred that the [[Danes]] (Vikings) began to invade his kingdom in force. In 871, the [[Saxons]] fought the Danes in eight pitched battles, with varying fortunes. However, the Viking armies were made up of professional soldiers, while only a portion of the Saxon armies were soldiers, the rest being conscripted farmers. Although King Ethelred fell in the last of these battles and his kingdom was worn out by fighting, King Alfred was able to make a treaty with the Danes by which they withdrew in 872. For several years the peace was kept, and Alfred dedicated himself to restoring his kingdom to a state of defense.

But in 876 the Danes renewed the war, launching an invasion in overwhelming force. Alfred defeated the Danes in momentous battles against great odds by land and sea, and effectually trapped the main body of the invaders at the port of Exeter so that they promised to retreat and never return if their lives were spared. But Alfred’s forces were weakened in the struggle, and when the Danes received reinforcements and treacherously renewed the invasion, he was unable to resist the onslaught. Thus it was that the king, after many brilliant victories, found himself a fugitive on the isle of Athelney in the marshes of England.

The Danes now roamed freely through King Alfred’s kingdom, plundering and oppressing the people. But Alfred, undaunted, secretly prepared to renew the struggle. In May of 878 Alfred, having rearmed and reorganized his forces without alerting the Danes, marched suddenly to attack their central encampment at Chippenham. The Danes met him in pitched battle, and Alfred’s determined, well disciplined army won a decisive victory.
Besieged in their camp and suffering from starvation, the Danes finally surrendered to the Saxons, and many of their leaders turned from paganism to Christianity. It was not long before the Danish incursions were renewed, but in the intervening time King Alfred was able to develop a strong, professional army and navy to check the invaders. After years of struggle, the steadfast courage and wisdom of King Alfred and the loyalty of his people had brought peace and freedom to his kingdom.

Alfred is regarded as the greatest of English kings, and he was the only one that the English have ever called 'the great'. In 886, when he freed London from the Danish invaders, he proclaimed himself 'King of the Anglo-Saxons' and 'King of the English'. At the time of his death in A.D. 899 he ruled Wessex and Western Mercia, and was acknowledged king of all the English who were not living under Danish occupation. For these reasons, and many others, he is regarded as the first monarch of all the English as a united people. He was an intellectual, and translated by his own hand many Latin texts into English so his people could read them. According to his biographer the Welsh monk named Asser, he was a deeply complex man who suffered a number of emotional and mental disorders, probably what we today would call [[obsessive compulsive disorder]]. But of all the English [[king]]s he is the only one who is not regarded as flawed in any way, and his own personal character has molded the English national character to the present day. He was succeeded as king by his eldest son Edward, known to history as [[Edward the Elder]].
Interestingly, every US President has been a decendent of Alfred the Great.
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:English History]]

{{Nb english monarchs}}

Talk:Anti Colonialism

2010-09-29T05:04:12Z

CainR: Created page with 'I feel it should be pointed out that not all third world countries are dictatorships. Some, such as Albania and Nicaragua have democratic governments. Granted these countries are…'

I feel it should be pointed out that not all third world countries are dictatorships. Some, such as Albania and Nicaragua have democratic governments. Granted these countries are corrupt as h*ll but they are still democracies--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 01:04, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2010-09-28T18:20:47Z

CainR:

{{debate}}

== Yes ==
Jesus, like all of us, was born at a time that best suited the plans of the Grand Architect. It is not God's fault we cannot yet understand those plans. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill: you are an idiot. There is no god. Jesus was a man. Stop reading the bible: it is not the plan of a grand architect. We make our own world. You yourself were not born at a time which suited anyone. You were born at the time you were born, as was I, as was every one of us. No plan. No design. Get over it. It's OK, it's not scary.

bless you

Chris Larner

*Are you kidding. There were many children named Jesus born about that time and place. Just pick one and apply the prevailing myths of the day to his life a wallaaa instant cult.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

don't know how can I put a third choice here, so I put it here 
I don't think anyone is qualified to answer this except for God the father, He choose the time and place Jesus to be born in His plan from eternity. 
Same goes for the question "is xyz saved"? Or "How about those who never heard of Jesus"? Only God the father knows.([[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 00:12, 31 March 2010 (EDT))

== No ==

Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. Don't you get me wrong, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:(I only want to know) [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So if Jesus was born at the wrong time (4 B.C.), does this mean you think God made a mistake? --[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:I think that if we were to say "Jesus was born at the wrong time", we could immediately assume due to God's infallibility that our reasons for saying it are wrong. Taking the example above, there must be a reason why the era of mass communication was not chosen for His incarnation. We might never know it, though. This argument really belongs above under "Yes", but I wrote it as an answer here. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: A point well made. As an atheist, I was using it as an example for the possible fallibility of God (Or Gods in general). Assuming his infallibility there must have been some reason why he chose to allow the rest of the world to live in ignorance until a sucession of violent empires spread (and continue to spread) his message of peace and love throughout the world. Rather than choosing to do it peacefully in an era of mass communication. I can't rationallise what this reason could possibly have been though... [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16 April 2007 09:38 (BST)

:::We could really use Jesus again right now... why only one visit? - BornAgainBrit

::::I'm not an expert on this, but isn't He supposed to return one more time? And as to the theology of "We could use Him now", isn't he "with" anyone/everyone who accepts Him into their hearts as their saviour? I guess there are also many stories in the Bible of the challenges to Faith and the obstacles in the Faithfuls' walk. But as to your basic sentiment, yeah, I don't really think there has ever been a time that wouldn't possibly have been made better by His incarnate presence. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even when talking about Jesus, scripture is garbage. For example, the gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different lineages between David and Jesus (28 and 47, resp.) Also, they make reference to a census by Caesar Augustus around the time of Mary and Joseph's move to Bethlehem, but this never happened (There was a census by Qurinius, but it was in 6 AD). Also, in order for Jesus to be the messiah, he needs to be directly descended from David (Joseph's side), but if Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus fulfil the prophecy and actually be the messiah? Case in point, I'd be surprised if anything in scripture is accurate. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 22:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Jesus will return, but he will not return as the peaceful, forgiving person he did come as. He will come in justice. AdamNelson has never read the Bible accurately. Just because two accounts of Jesus say different things does not mean that they are contradictory. For example: I saw the fireman working on a fire. I saw the police man making an arrest near the gas station. If you were to then say that both were true, then it would seem that there was a contradiction. However many times in the Bible, you have to take into account that such instances in the Bible are complimentary, rather than contradictory. In my example, to show how those two instances could be complimentary, look: I saw the fireman working on working on a fire in the gas station, while the police officer arrested a suspect.
In Christ;
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 14:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Jesus Christ, 'The Computer Wizard" (and have you ever thought about getting a nomme de plume that isn't rubbish)will you get a Life? Stop reading the bible: it's balls. Jesus Christ will not come again. There is no god. Wake up. We make our own world. Start talking to people without the bible as an intermediary. Honestly!

best wishes

Chris Larner

Larner, I don't really understand why you're on this website. You're an atheistic bigot who is trying to force his beliefs, while not providing any evidence, on others. I don't get it. As an atheist, your life has no meaning so why should you be concerned about the lives of others? {{unsigned|RianB}}

==Prophetic Proof==
Israel is given 490 years.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city-"
Daniel 9:25-26 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'

Israel's decreed period of time will be interupted at 483 years. 483 years after this Decree is given to Ezra by Artaxerxes, B.C.457. 27A.D. Jesus begins ministering to Israel. He is rejected by Israel. The promise of salvation is opened to gentile nations until...

Daniel 9:27 "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'.

Israel's final seven years occurs after a period of time marked by war and desolation and ending with a 7 year covenant with the final ruler of this current age. Daniels foretold Israel's demise almost 500 years before it happened in 70 A.D. as well as it's final 7 years that are yet to soon happen. The timing of the birth, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus fullfills the Word of God. Every book is in perfect concordance with this up to this point of time. This is only one example out of hundreds of revealed truths that some don't want you to know about that are contained within the Judeo-Christian Bible.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

==The Real Question==
The real question is not IF Jesus was born at the correct time and place. It is WHY WAS HE born at that particular time and place. If we can answer that, then I feel we may understand more.--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 14:20, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2010-09-28T18:19:21Z

CainR:

Kim Jong Il

2010-09-28T18:02:16Z

CainR:

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:Bvdy76.jpg|300px]]
| name =Kim Jong Il
| birth =February 16, 1941 Vyatskoye, Russian SFSR, [[Soviet Union]]
| parents =[[Kim Il-sung]] Kim Jong-suk
| religion =Atheist
| education =Kim Il-sung University
| spouse =Kim Young Sook Song Hye-rim Ko Young-hee Kim Ok
| children =Kim Sul-song Kim Il-soon Kim Jong-nam Kim Jong-chul Kim Jong-un
| death =n/a
| deathmanner =n/a
| burial =n/a
| country =[[North Korea]]
| military =n/a
| rank =None
| polbeliefs =Communism
| party =Workers' Party of Korea
| dictatordate =July 8, 1994
| war =Minor skirmishes with South Korea
| deathnumber =Hundreds of thousands via famine and repression
}}
'''Kim Jong Il''' ([[Hangul]]:김정일; [[Hanja]]:金正日) (born February 16, 1941 in Vyatskoye, Russia) has been the dictator of [[North Korea]] since coming to power in 1994. He is also the leader of the [[Communist Party]] of North Korea. He has been criticized for extensive [[human rights]] abuses in North Korea. Over one million people in North Korea have starved to death as a result of his corrupt government, disastrous agricultural polices and refusal to accept international aid.

He came into power in 1994, after his father [[Kim Il Sung]] died, and has remained the North Korean leader ever since. He is an intense persecutor of [[Christians]] and other organized religions. He is in conflict with the world community over the building of nuclear weapons, but seems to relish the attention. Kim claims North Korea has built a nuclear weapon.

Kim is only 5 feet 3 inches tall,<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1907197.stm</ref> but styles his hair in an exaggerated fashion to appear to be taller leading some to speculate he has a [[Napoleon Complex]].

Kim Jong Il is also thought to be a hypochondriac, as well as his chronic fear of flying. He travels by a custom built armored train. he is also famous also for his lavish lifestyle having been known to have at one time abducted a Japanese sushi chef for the sole purpose of making sushi for his "high exaltedness".{{fact}}

== Also See ==
* [[Kim Il Sung]]

== References==
<references/>

== Links ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1907197.stm BBC Profile]

[[Category:Mass Murderers]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Korea]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: Lunatics]]

Talk:Massachusetts

2010-09-27T15:35:40Z

CainR:

This is a highly biased article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 06:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, this should be interesting to watch. Gay marriage versus the Spirit of '76.

::But... Massachusetts is the ''Cradle of Liberty'' so it's ''good!"
::But... Massachusetts is ''liberal'' so it's ''bad!''
::But... Massachusetts is the ''Cradle of Liberty'' so it's ''good!"
::But... Massachusetts is ''liberal'' so it's ''bad!''
:::(head explodes)
:::: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I can't beleive how quickly this article manages to mention liberals and same-sex marriages. This is pure propaganda. Give the state some credit and talk about it's identity not its politics as the realm of opinion is not valid in an encyclopedia. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 04:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::And regardless of its politics, it's still a state and deserves the tag. (I restored it) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the bias and tried to change the information to simply be factual.--[[User:Eljoe|Eljoe]] 21:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

You should be nicer to us. The rest of the country owes Mass for thanksgiving :)--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 11:35, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

Astronomy

2010-09-27T15:08:42Z

CainR:

[[Image:Moooghj.jpg|right|300px]]
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=astronomy</ref> It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the [[religion]]s of many early [[civilization]]s such as the [[Egypt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. The great stone henge at [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[sky|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we now call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

Current hot topics in astrophysics research are [[exoplanets]], [[black holes]], and the accelerating universe.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old. Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibilty of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young earth creationism]]).

==Starlight As An Objection To The Big Bang Theory==
The [[starlight problem]] is an argument against the [[Big Bang theory|big bang theory]] which theorizes a universe of billions of years old. <ref name="aig">http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> The [[creation science]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] has stated the following regarding the starlight problem for the Big Bang Theory and the work of [[Charles W. Misner]] is cited who published his work in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]'':
{{cquote|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="aig" />}}

== Starlight As An Objection to Young Earth Creationism ==
Those who propose an old universe assert there is a [[starlight problem]] for the [[young earth creationism|young universe]] model. Two key assumptions for the objection to a young universe model is that the speed of light has been constant and [[methodological naturalism]].

==Major Fields in Astronomy==
*Cosmology-The study of the Universe as a whole
*Astrophysics-The physics behind astronomical objects
*Archeoastronomy-The study of how the stars influenced ancient cultures
*Radio Astronomy-Using radio waves to study the universe
*Optical Astronomy-Study of astronomical objects in the visible light range
*Planetery Science-Study of planets and moons, both in our solar system and outside our solar system
*Exobiology-Theoretical study of extraterrestrial life
*Astronautical Engineering-The design and construction of space craft

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage]
*[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal]
*[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society]
*[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association]
*[http://www.badastronomy.com Bad Astronomy] a website that deals with myths and misconceptions in astronomy.
*[http://www.john-duck.co.uk/html/astronomy.html A guide on how to start]
*[http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080527.html Astronomy Picture of the Day] Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.

[[Category:Science]]

Stephen Colbert

2010-09-27T14:44:35Z

CainR:

[[File:Stephencolbert2.jpg|thumb]]

'''Stephen Colbert''' is a writer, a comedian, and an actor. Colbert is [[Catholic]] and an erstwhile Sunday school teacher<ref>http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/</ref>, and a self-proclaimed [[liberal]] [[Democrat]]. <ref>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 Rolling Stone Interview, Oct 31, 2006</ref>

Colbert began his career at [[Comedy Central]] in the year 2000 on the show ''Strangers with Candy''. He later left in order to become a correspondent on ''[[The Daily Show|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]'', where he began to build what would later be the character he would play on ''The Colbert Report''. He was well-regarded on the show and occasionally guest-hosted for Stewart.

Due to his work on ''The Daily Show'', he won three [[Emmy Awards]] and two [[Peabody Awards]] along with the other writers.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0170306/awards IMDB List of Stephen Colbert Awards </ref> <ref>http://128.192.29.189/news/pressrelease.asp?ID=151 List of 2007 Peabody Award Winners</ref>

==''The Colbert Report''==

In 2005, Colbert left ''The Daily Show'' in order to become the host of a spinoff, ''The Colbert Report''.

In the show, Colbert plays a satirical right-wing political talk show host. This personna was largely based on [[Bill O'Reilly]], who has a friendly rivalry with the show.

''The Colbert Report'' has a very loyal following which the Colbert character often uses for his various pranks. For example, in every public vote for naming something, Colbert urges his fans to vote for him.

In his recurring segment "The Word", which is a parody of O'Reilly's "Talking Points", Colbert coined the word [[truthiness]] which refers to the quality possessed by statements which, though factually false, are repeated by supporters who feel in their hearts that they ''ought'' to be true, and regard it as quibbling to object to their falsehood.

Colbert has poked fun at [[Wikipedia]] and its apparent democratization of truth. He has coined the word "Wikiality" (as opposed to "reality") and caused trouble for Wikipedia by suggesting that his listeners alter articles. In August of 2006, he encouraged users to state that the population of African [[elephants]] had tripled in the last decade. Colbert's point was that if enough people believe something, it becomes "the truth". Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to prevent further vandalism.

Recently, Colbert had viewers write in his name to a public vote done by [[NASA]] to name a new room addition to the [[International Space Station]]. Colbert's cult-like followers won the contest for him with an astonishing 230,539 total votes, 40,000 more than NASA's choice of Serenity.

Stephen Colbert recently has gained attention in the media with his satirical mocking of [[Fox News]]'s [[Glenn Beck]]. Colbert has mocked Beck for claiming that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is a racist and a socialist.

In September of 2010 Colbert testified in character before Congress.

==Relationship with Conservapedia==
Conservapedia was mentioned on at least two episodes of ''The Colbert Report''. After learning about Conservapedia's [[Conservative Bible Project|initiative to remove "liberal bias" from the Bible]], Stephen Colbert urged his followers to insert him into the planned conservative rewrite as a Biblical figure.<ref>{{cite episode
| title = The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 2009-10-07
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251994/october-07-2009/tip-wag---conservapedia--louvre---honda-unicycle}}</ref> This was followed by mass vandalism by Colbert fans.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709438&oldid=709432 Example of vandalism on the Stephen Colbert article]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29&diff=prev&oldid=709520 Example of vandalism on the Genesis 1-8 page of the Conservative Bible Project]</ref> Later on, he interviewed Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]].<ref>{{cite episode
| ttle = The Colbert Report (December 8, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 2009-12-08
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly}}</ref>

==See also==

*''[[The Daily Show]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Colbert, Stephen}} 
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Television Show Hosts]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category: Liberals]]
{{liberalism}}

Classroom prayer

2010-01-21T21:44:35Z

CainR:

'''Classroom prayer''' is teacher-led, state-sanctioned [[prayer]] in schools. The Supreme Court case [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) banned classroom prayer from [[public schools]] in the [[United States]], and in Florida in 2009 school administrators are being prosecuted for praying at a school-affiliated, adult-only event.<ref>http://www.baptistmessenger.com/story/30D869A1C3EB8104A87DD4CA8659031D</ref> Classroom prayer has been banned in [[government]] schools in most other Western European countries also.

Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom. Some language teachers at religious schools teach the students the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary in the respective language(s) and begin each day's instruction with one or the other.

Christian [[homeschooling]] classes, in contrast, often begin with a classroom prayer and the students benefit enormously from it.

Some private or religious schools hold religious assemblies, including religious services such as the Roman Catholic Mass, that permit prayer outside of the classroom, away from intellectual pursuits.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in [[U.S.]] public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' banned school prayer, citing the [[First Amendment]]'s prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion a precedent for its ruling. The UK has a little-observed legal requirement that all pupils "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship," except where the parent of the pupil has asked for the pupil to be excused from this.<ref> [http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980031_en_7#pt2-ch6 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 part 2 chapter 6]</ref>

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support a nominally-secular but effectively-atheistic position for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], echoing the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists,<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref> though no such phrase exists in the actual text of the [[First Amendment]] (the relevant part of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]).

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on February 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On February 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over 'separation of church and state.' Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies have appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Many of these how ever are extream cases and many schools allow students to pray in silence, with some, even in liberal states like Massachusetts, have a Bible Study Group<ref>http://hs.qrsd.org/co-curricular.php</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

Abortion genocide

2010-01-21T21:39:40Z

CainR:

Since the fatal and flawed Supreme Court decision of [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973) it has clearly been medically and scientifically established (with advances in fetology) that the pre-born are, indeed, individual living human beings.<ref>citation needed</ref> The environmental difference between the fetus and the baby outside the mother’s womb is the uterine environment of water, versus the outside world of air and space.
<ref>"Former Abortionist Bernard Nathanson Exposes Lies of American Pro-Abortion Movement:" [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072904.html]</ref>

==World culture from its beginnings has always regarded the pre-born to be special life==

The Hebrew Scriptures mirror what has been commonly accepted by world cultures since the beginning. When a pregnant woman’s child was either injured or killed, there was a just penalty to be observed.<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25&version=KJV</ref> The forming and growing baby within the mother’s womb has not only been accepted as human life and offspring, but fully worthy of being brought to its completion with the birthing process. <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13&version=KJV</ref><ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:41&version=KJV</ref>

==Genocide==

[[Genocide]] is usually thought of in terms of (massive) population massacres, such as what sadly and pathetically took place with Hitler’s Germany and the many Jewish holocaust concentration camps. There have been a considerable number of more “modern” day genocides – among them, the Darfur region of Sudan and also, the Rwandan human carnage. War has been the sad occasion to hasten and rationalize the human slaughter of innocent human beings who have (inconveniently) stood in the way of warring factions.

==Abortion is the genocide of the pre-born one by one==

Since the infamous Roe V. Wade 1973 Supreme Court decision, it has been estimated that at least 50 million babies have been slaughtered [in the United States].<ref>"One Quarter of Black Population Missing from Abortion Genocide Says Dr. Alveda King[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07082406.html]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?

2010-01-21T21:35:21Z

CainR:

{{Debate}}

There is no question about abstinence only sex education versus no sex education, or about Abstinance plus (condoms and pills) education versus education based just on condoms and pills, but I have yet to see any source that recommends that Abstinence only is better than Abstinence plus at reducing lifetime sexual partners, increasing age of first sexual encounter, decreasing unwanted pregnancies, or decreasing the number of abortions; Children who get abstinence only education are more likely to have sex with out a condom, why go with AO instead of AP? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==AO Hurts==
Children reaching puberty should know all there is about sex. Not excatly EVERYTHING but only the essentials. Abstinence should always be taught but not the only topic. Abstinence is till the best form of birth control. It only failed once. ;) [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 19:05, 15 March 2009.

It hurts. ALOT. If abstinence only were taught only, without teaching the kids any knowledge of contraceptives and birth control, if they do decide to give in to their primal "urges", they have no other alternative to keep them from having an unplanned pregnancy. Abstinence is alright, but the kids need to be taught that there are other alternatives if they feel the need to do so. --[[User:MikeEtc|MikeEtc]] 14:25, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

It dosn't just hurt, its unfair to people who have no issue with premartial sex. Shouldnt the kids (and their families) who are ok with it be given access to the information?--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 16:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Sermon on the Mount

2010-01-21T19:52:53Z

CainR:

The '''Sermon on the Mount''' is a set of statements by [[Jesus]] of Nazareth that fully clarify his most significant moral statements and duties anywhere in the bible. The Sermon is found in Matthew 5. Perhaps the most people quoted part of the Sermon on the Mount are the [[Beatitudes]] which list those who are blessed, including the poor, the meek, and the children. The Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, then goes on to introduce the [[Lord's Prayer]], the request to "turn the other cheek", and the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Luke has an abbrievated version of the Sermon on the Mount, including a shorter version of the Beatitudes.

== See also ==

*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Ascension of Christ]]

[[Category:Bible]]

Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?

2010-01-21T02:39:20Z

CainR:

The Home School movement, definitely.

The home school movement provides parents the responsibility and wonderful opportunity to educate and enrich their children's minds. I go to classes where we study Logic, Latin, and read college books. I have been home schooled for four years and I went to a private school for five years. Home schooling has provided me with enormous amounts of extra-curricular and social activities, as well as academic privileges. Home schoolers '''do''' have a social life, contrary to what the liberals will have you believe. Actually, home-schoolers are more eloquent and insightful in their writing and speech. I am in a home school speech and debate club and I see home schoolers who are speaking with the clarity of . me to any speech and debate tournaments and you will see for yourself. I encourage you to home school your child for it will be one of the best things you can ever do for your child.

Funny, all the home schooled kids I know are socially awkward, ignorant, uncharismatic wierdos who believe what ever comes out of their parents mouths

: Too bad not everyone can afford the time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Strictly from personal experience, a homeschool environment is fertile ground for brainwashing, and usually of the conservative religious bent as well. Public school, for all its flaws, at least exposes students to a far more diverse environment than the other options.
--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Public School ==
Public school is necessary for those who can't afford private school and don't have the time for home school.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The establishment of public school systems (in the 18th and 19th centuries?) brought about mass literacy as never before seen by humans. Although private schools are a nice option for the rich, and homeschooling for those who have the time and access to resources, the backbone of western civilization as we know it - at its best, even - is the ''right'' to a good education implied in tax-supported free schools for everyone. [[User:Human|Human]] 03:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The fundamental problem with claiming that home schooling and/or private schooling are superior to public schools is that both of them ''rely'' on the existence of public schools to ensure that superiority.

Why do many private schools post superior academic results to comparable public schools? Because, of course, they have the option of expelling students who refuse to work...or not accepting such students in the first place.

Now, the problem is this: what is to be done with the children who don't meet the standards of the private school, or who lack parents who have the time/financial stability/inclination to home school? Simply leaving those children to their own devices strikes me as an extraordinarily bad plan; I can't imagine a surer way to ensure a substantial population of criminals.

Public schools have their faults, to be certain--but I have yet to see a proposal for a truly workable system that doesn't include them.

==The Freedom to Choose!==
To be able to choose which philosophy will teach your children. Which one is the best is a subjective endeavor depending on the individual. There is no absolutes between private, public, or home-schools. But to be able to choose which is the best at any given time is the only good philosophy for a society to give its citizens.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
:Clearly if one chooses public schools, one relinquishes their children to the bias and whim of the district school board, whom themselves serve the agenda of the State and Federal Departments of Education. I agree this still constitutes choice, but I disagree with the notion that atheistic dogmatism constitutes any philosophy in the proper sense. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 19:45, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Bias is inherent in all walks of life. Homeschooling causes the child to serve the whims of their parents, children in private and public schools may learn based on their teachers' opinions. It is impossible to escape bias. Therefore I believe a range of choices will cater to people of all beliefs and truths. [[User:EmiaW|EmiaW]]19:45, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

==All three==

It does not matter how children are educated, as long as they are educated properly to live in the modern world. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Talk:Al Gore

2010-01-20T18:04:15Z

CainR:

3/20/07 - Intended to do considerable work to correct spelling and grammatical errors, but time flies. Will return when I have more time. In the interim, I have updated some info and worked to maintain the encyclopedic nature of the entry (attempting to resolve some "opinion" matter which had existed).

This entire entry needs to have citations or references or anything. This violates the 2nd commandment...always cite!--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==alleged voting irregularities==
I don't think that it is best to say that Gore challenged the 2000 election because of "alleged voting irregularities". Gore's main argument was that the election was very close, and another recount might have favored him. Yes, there were some irregularities in the way that hanging chads were counted, and maybe some other matters, but Gore was really taking a stand on how those should be counted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==
The entire Criticism section seems to be based on gossip. Discussing Al Gore's electrical bills and monetary practices has nothing to do with his public life. Instead, this section should contain references to public criticism of Gore, not just the criticisms of the user who wrote this section. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]]

It seems this entire website is slamming democrats every chance that is given, even if its not serious. Exploiting their flaws instead of posting any positive effects they might have done. I love the example about pointing out that Al Gore uses a private jet; such a terrible crime. It doesn't state his intentions while using the jet were good or bad it just states that because he uses his jet he is a hypocrite. O and he owns a mine which is "potentially" dangerous. Wasn't aware of a mine that wasn't dangerous. Instead of bashing the democrats so much, why is it not in conservapedia's nature to bash the republicans a bit? Their mission statement is to post neutral articles from a conservative point of view? Then why is it on this page they get pissed at gore for using his JET, but when i look at Nixon's article on this site nothing is mentioned about how poorly he managed the Vietnam war? Guess the whole jet thing is more important huh?

:Take a look a [[Scooter Libby]], then get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth. As to Nixon's managing the Vietnam War, you are correct. We need more on how the Democrrats protested their own war that they started. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::No mention of the fact in the above rant that Gore preaches against all of that engine exhaust causing global warming...but his intentions are good while he's on that private jet spewing all that exhaust so he can get to his destination and preach against global warming. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I will probably be blocked soon, so i am merely posing this question: how is this an editable encyclopedia? If someone is blocked, they can supposedly discuss it with the admin who blocked them. But any edit on their talk page will be auto-blocked. In addition, close mindedness is stopping the most important articles from being fair.

I'm pretty sure that he was for gay marriage, so there isn't much reason for him hanging out with those guys, what about john hagee endorsing mccain? hmmmm. speaking of gays, in massachusetts they legalized gay marriage, they rank dead last in illiteracy, best in math and science, and have a low crime rate, a low homeless population, what's so bad?

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

So did we go out of our way to find the least flattering Al Gore picture we could find? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 01:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Probably. Just like [[Rosie O'Donnell]]. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 15:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
the article need some [[Al Gore]] photo.--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That one at his breakfast's particularly good. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
I thought that the one with him as Vice President was nice. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

he is looking quite akward there with those disgusting creeps, im not too sure they were friends

==Media bias==

We can compare the lionization of Al Gore to the favorable treatment given [[Paul Ehrlich]]:

*Despite his lengthy green-left credentials and his terrible track record as a prognosticator, NBC contracted with Ehrlich in 1990 to produce a 12-part series on global ecological issues for [[NBC News]]. NBC cast the radical professor as a disinterested scientist dispassionately explaining global warming and environmental issues. Ehrlich was later nominated for an [[Emmy Award]] for his TV propaganda and received a five-year [[MacArthur Foundation]] fellowship. [[PBS]] subsequently made him the subject of a puff-piece documentary. [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+%22experts%22:+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451]

== Biased views ==

"An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Oscar despite its blatant scientific inaccuracies."

Proof please? - Nebjy

You may start from the article [[Global Warming]]. For your signature, use three tilde (~) characters. Better yet, use four of them, so that date and time are added as well. Regards, [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:28, 12 December 2007 (EST)

==Inventing the Internet==

:The statement had been taken out of context by other individuals who said that he said that he "invented" the internet.<ref>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp</ref>

There is still controversy over what he meant by saying that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet".
*He may have been making a typical politician's exaggeration, or simply have made a minor verbal slip.
*He may have been taking too much credit for something that had already been conceived and begun.

It depends on whether he's saying he thought of it first, and then told scientists to create it. Or whether he just means that he sponsored a bill to give it additional funding after it had been created.

Compare "was the inspiration for ''[[Love Story]]''". In this case, he was '''not''' the inspiration for the book, he simply knew the author. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:35, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:The current link '''places the statement firmly in context''': he is unequivocal that he "created the internet". Which is BS. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::I should block you 15 seconds for profanity, except I think you're exactly <s>(*>*)ing</s> right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::And what about the Snopes link? Yes, what Al Gore said may have had some, uhm, self-serving motives, but there is a difference between inventing and fostering the creation of something - that was the point of the Snopes article. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 05:48, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Hehe [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::BS stands for Boy Scouts anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Al Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet". This is untrue, because [[DARPA]] scientists created it. Gore only provided some funding to help it along. Right?

:When a politician makes a major misstatement - even if it was only a poor choice of words - he really ought to make an attempt to straighten it out.

:Now [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Snopes] may have decided to give Gore a pass on this, but when and where did Gore ever come out and say, "I did not create the Internet. I did not design it or even conceive of it. All I did was ...?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Coulter Scholarship ==
Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia by not allowing "…opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion." So why is there a quote from Ann Coulter in this article? Not only is she incorrect in her assertion about Gore's experience in Vietnam, it makes this article look amateurish. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:28, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

:In case anyone is still interested, info here regarding tour. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e644.htm http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Al_Gore_-_Vietnam_War_service/id/606415 [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:30, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

== Fred Phelps ==

Removed "liberal activist" from before Fred Phelps' name. According to Conservapedia's "liberal" entry, liberals want "Legalized same-sex marriage." Phelps' biggest issue is anti-homosexuality. Therefore, it's inappropriate to list him as a liberal activist.
--[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 14:40, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, sorry about that. Your word choice, "controversial activist", is better now. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 15:09, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Captain Planet Song ==

Captain Planet!!!
He’s our hero.
Gonna take pollution down to ZERO!!

Captain Planet, he’s the man
Leading the charge, Earth’s number 1 fan!

Check him out, you’re gonna see
He’s the Mega-mac Daddy of ecology!

Cap’s the hero with the gumption
Takes on the “overs,” population and consumption

Yeah, he could use a better groomer
Some people say he’s got a bad sense of humor

Signed Anon

==Report: Gore Predicts 220 Foot Sea Level Rise in 10 years==
Also, North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years! americanthinker.com Oct. 30, 2009 Marc Sheppard http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2375076/ [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:10, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

==Electricity Use==
As Andy pointed out the following passage about Gores electricity use is Gossip and uncited gossip at that, thus i removed it

In 2007, Al Gore received criticism for his high electricity use. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore - Electric consumption bill]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. In the year since the 2007 criticism, energy use at Gore's mansion increased 10%.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080619a.html</ref>
Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from "green", or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power.{{Fact}}--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:04, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Al Gore

2010-01-20T18:02:56Z

CainR:

{{President
|image=041109_al_gore_vsml_6a_vsmall.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Tipper Gore]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr.''' ( born March 31, 1948) was the 45th [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] of the [[United States]] (1993-2001), succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[United States Senate|Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively. He is a Nobel-prize winner for his work on [[global warming]]; Gore spreads alarmist propaganda, proclaiming the end of the world. Gore likes to say that, "The Earth has a fever." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/GlobalWarming/story?id=2110628&page=1</ref> He has no degree in atmospheric sciences, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, or climatology. Gore took two science classes as an undergraduate. He got a "C+" in one and a "D" in the other. <ref>http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm</ref>

Gore was the [[Democratic Party]]'s candidate for President in the 2000 election, running on a ticket with Sen. [[Joe Lieberman|Joseph Lieberman]] of [[Connecticut]].

In his early life, Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) [[Vanderbilt University]]. He also served in the [[United States Army]] and worked as a war correspondent during the [[Vietnam War]].<ref>Kennedy,William V. ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. <http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html></ref> He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

__TOC__

==Political career==

[[Al Gore]] followed his father, [[Albert Gore, Sr.]] a prominent [[Democratic]] Senator from [[Tennessee]], into [[Congress]]. His father was a supporter of the [[New Deal]] who was finally defeated in 1970, despite having sent his son to [[Vietnam]] in order to bolster his campaign.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/gore/stories/gore/</ref>

Al Gore was initially somewhat [[conservative]] on social issues, supporting [[Clarence Thomas]] for the [[Supreme Court]] and, along with his wife, opposing offensive lyrics in rock music. But as his presidential aspirations grew, Gore became increasingly [[liberal]].

Gore ran for president in 1988 but was defeated in the primary by [[Michael Dukakis]]. Gore then continued to serve in the Senate.<ref>While serving in the Senate, Gore introduced the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, signed December 9, 1991, which his supporters claim helped develop the Internet and the National Research and Education Network. [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00272:@@@L&summ2=m&] [http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/internet_history_90s.shtml] When Gore himself bragged about creating the internet, he was referring to prior legislation (see quotations below).</ref>

In the [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992 Presidential Election]], Democratic nominee [[Bill Clinton]] selected Gore as his running mate. They won the election, and Gore was sworn in as Vice President on January 20, 1993. Clinton and Gore were elected to a second term in [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996]]. Gore had little-to-no influence over the Clinton Administration, and almost nothing of significance is attributed to him.{{fact}}

As is traditional for Vice Presidents, Gore was nominated as the [[Democratic]] candidate in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential Election]]. He lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the presidency.<ref>Leip, David. "2000 Presidential General Election Results." David Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. 2005. 18 Mar. 2007 <http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000>.</ref>

== Al Gore and uncharitableness ==

''See also'': [[Liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

The political magazine the ''[[American Spectator]]'' declared:
{{cquote|The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity...<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044126&c=1</ref>}}

==Supporters==
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredGoreFiny.jpg|thumb|180px|left|From left to right: Fred Phelps, Al Gore, and former Kansas Gov. Joan Finney.]]
In 1988 Gore courted the support of controversial [[activist]] [[Fred Phelps]] of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] in Topeka, Kansas. In appreciation for Phelps' help and support of Gore, Phelps was provided tickets to the [[inauguration]] of [[President Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref> Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref>
<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref>

==Current activities==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries and a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He was also mentioned as a possible [[2008 presidential election|2008 presidential candidate]].

Gore and the ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' shared the 2007 [[Nobel Peace Prize]] for his work on [[climate change]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312024,00.html</ref>

Gore is the author of ''The [[Assault on Reason]]''. He also starred in the 2006 documentary about [[global warming]] entitled, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]],'' which won an [[Academy Award]]. In 2007, the British High Court directed teachers to inform students to whom they show the film that it "is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument" and to draw attention to eleven specific inaccuracies. Furthermore, the court advised, "If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of ... the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political [[indoctrination]]."<ref>Sheppard, Noel. "Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’." [Weblog NewsBusters] 08 Oct 2007. Newsbusters. 9 Oct 2007 <[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies -eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth]>.</ref> Despite the errors, the judge also concluded "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.” <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html</ref>

Speaking in Manhattan to the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative, Gore wants to use "civil disobedience" to combat the construction of coal power plants without the ability to capture carbon. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427421,00.html Al Gore Urges 'Civil Disobedience' Toward Coal Plants] Fox News, September 24, 2008</ref> Civil disobedience or the call for intentional violation of laws is an extremist point of view. It is believed that he was speaking in regards to Western nation coal plants. No mention of China and their coal production. The gravest threat from coal pollution comes from China, in which two plants are constructed per week and 500 more plants over the next 10 years. <ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9947668 China's Coal-Fueled Boom Has Costs] NPR, May 2, 2007</ref>

==Quotes==
* Gore said, '''''"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."''''' <ref>Blitzer, Wolf. Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition'. CNN. 9 March 1999. 2 June 2007 <[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000 /transcript.gore/]></ref>

* Gore falsely claimed that he discovered problems in Love Canal and fixed them. He said:

:"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/02/politics/main72638.shtml</ref>

:"That was the one that started it all. ... We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."

:"I love [[Van Jones]]. I love his work. I love his heart and his commitment and his intellect. I love his mission. He has wisely picked a part of this set of interwoven challenges that should have been addressed much more forcefully by me and others long ago.”<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=all</ref>

* During an interview with ''Slate'', regarding the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, a question was asked concerning a sense from the [[Climategate]] e-mails and from data that was "hidden and hoarded." These truths are the opposite of the case Al Gore made in his book about having an open and fair debate. Gore responded with a lack of command of the most basic details of anything related to Earth and climate. He said,
{{cquote|I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. [...] So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing [...] but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.<ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/al-gore-cant-tell-time-thinks-most-recent-climategate-email-is-more-than-10-years-old/</ref><ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2237789/</ref>}}
:The most recent emails in Climategate were from November 12, 2009.

==Criticism==
[[Image:Al and GW.png|thumb|400px|Cartoon by Greg Sheffield]]
[[Ann Coulter]] claims Gore exaggerated his military service record: "Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. 'I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later,' he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months."<ref>http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi</ref>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties, specifically the mining of zinc adjacent to his property that he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. New owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From ''The Tennessean'' (3/12/07):
<blockquote>
"Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

'We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,' Gore wrote."
</blockquote>
However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic</ref>

Al Gore's fondness for using [[buzzword]]s became the focus of a prank played on Gore by students at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in 1996. MIT students distributed a [[bingo]] card containing meaningless buzzwords Gore was known for peppering his speeches with, including "infobahn", "knowledge worker", "vector", "high confidence", and "information marketplace". Sure enough, during Gore's speech at MIT, a commotion erupted in the audience when enough buzzwords were said to complete the Bingo card.<ref>http://hacks.mit.edu/by_year/1996/gore/</ref>. Gore's current favorite buzzword is "unified national smart grid", which he promotes in conjunction with his catastrophic global warming prophecies, earning him ridicule as "The Goracle" in a ''[[Washington Post]]'' article by Dana Milbank.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html</ref> [[Bjorn Lomborg]] has additionally criticized Al Gore for framing global warming using buzzword terms as some sort of transcendent generational quest, as when Gore called the so-called "climate crisis" the "chance to experience...a generational mission, the exhileration of a compelling moral purpose, a shared and unifying cause, the thrill of...the restless human need for transcendence."<ref>Lomborg, Bjorn. ''Cool It''. New York: Vintage Books, 2008.</ref>

==Fabrications and blunders==
*On February 20, 2000, Gore claimed he has “always, always, always” supported [[Roe v. Wade]]. However, in 1977, he voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that [[abortion]] “takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,” and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating over the course of his entire U.S. House career (1977 to 1984) from the National Right to Life Committee.<ref>http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html</ref>

*On February 4, 2000, Gore claimed, “We had a huge event with 3,000 people at [[Ohio State University]].” In reality, “Officials at that rally said the room where it had taken place did not hold more than 1,200 people, and, given the area needed for the staging erected for the occasion, they estimated the crowd at 500,” according to known [[liberal]] media source the ''[[New York Times]]''.{{fact}}

*On February 2, 2000, on [[Good Morning America]] Al Gore claimed, “We won in every single [[demographic category]]” in the [[New Hampshire]] [[primary]]. In reality [[Bill Bradley]] carried [[male]] voters and voters aged 18-29, according to exit polls.{{fact}}

Gore's comment that he "took the initiave in creating the [[Internet]]" was criticized in the ''St. Petersburg Times'' (Florida):

:This was not the first time Gore has overreached. A year ago Gore told reporters that he and his wife, [[Tipper Gore|Tipper]], at the time when they were college sweethearts, were the inspiration for the novel "[[Love Story]]." That came as news to the befuddled author, [[Erich Segal]]. [http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/]

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Al Gore|Al Gore on Breaking News]]

==External links==
*[http://www.algore.com/ Official website]
*[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276476942822261 Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate], ''Investor's Business Daily'', October 5, 2007
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html Al Gore News and Commentary] from the ''New York Times''
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/al-gore/ What Liberals Say - Al Gore], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.compeaus.com/frozen.html Yearly Frozen Gore Ice Sculpture In Alaska]

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

{{USVicePresidents}}

[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

User talk:BabeTruth2

2010-01-20T18:01:11Z

CainR:

Yes, you will be blocked again, because you are posting gossip inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Your posting is not educational in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Our [[rules]] are clear and violators are blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: And how is an entire article speculating on Darwin's mental health any different? Or information on [[Barack Obama]]'s drug use? Or on [[Al Gore]]'s energy usage? I challenge you to explain the difference. --[[User:BabeTruth2|BabeTruth2]] 00:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Maybe it isn't any different. I haven't seen those articles, and any gossip there should be removed also. It's not an encyclopedia if it has gossip. It's the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

ahem Andy, meaning no disrepect but this is on the Gore page, uncited might I add

In 2007, Al Gore received criticism for his high electricity use. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's[22] many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. In the year since the 2007 criticism, energy use at Gore's mansion increased 10%.[23] Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from "green", or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power

In which case, you won't mind me deleating it

:: I'll take a chance on you and leave your account active, in case this was a genuine misunderstanding of the [[rules]]. Feel free to edit out gossip from those other entries. This is an educational and intellectual resource, and please improve it while adhering to what we just discussed. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Amoral

2010-01-20T17:57:24Z

CainR:

Someone who is '''amoral''' is one that does not know the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong. More and more western society is becoming amoral, as [[morality]] is taught as something that is relative to the situation.

Amorality is not to be confused with [[immorality]]. A person that is immoral is choosing to do that which is wrong, knowing full well that it is wrong. In many ways amoral is more dangerous. A person who knows they are lost can turn to what is right, but a person who has lost their compass will have a hard time finding their way at all.

Amoral can also refer to ''something'' which has no moral quality, such as race or technology (but which can be used for good or for bad). In this case the word ''nonmoral'' may be used.<ref>American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000) defines "unmoral" as "1. Having no moral quality; amoral. 2. Unrelated to moral or ethical considerations; nonmoral."</ref><ref>http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/amoral.html</ref>

Legally, Amorality is reffered to as "insanity" when the person is incapapable of knowing right and wrong
[[Category:Sin]]

Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?

2010-01-20T17:47:14Z

CainR:

{{debate}}

Would Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic be considered examples of foreign languages? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't see a real point. I'd rather kids learn German, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, or some other useful language in school rather than Italian, Spanish and French. I'd also rather we start teaching kids foreign languages much earlier before English Language patterns are set.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spanish can be useful down in South-West US, places such as Arizona or New Mexico, so I don't see the problem with it.. But French is such a commonly taught language in North America; how useful is it really? Anyways, I quite agree with what Elamdri states.--[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]
:When I say useful, I mean languages that are more sought after in the business and government spheres. Yeah, Spanish can be helpful if you work at McDonalds in New Mexico, but other than that, your limited. German and especially Mandarin are the other two languages of big business besides English. Farsi and Arabic are important languages right now for anyone looking into careers in government, military, and espionage.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You do know that there are countries to the south of the United States right? You do know that these countries represent one of the largest trading blocks to the United States? Just wondering. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They aren't going to be NEARLY as important in the near future as Southeast Asia is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Having worked at a Burger King in New Mexico, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be all that useful. If you want to work at a decent restaurant here, though, Spanish might help. Or, you know, if you want to attempt to talk to the people who do the jobs you don't want to do, keep the American economy from collapse, etc. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I was being sarcastic. Of course Spanish is useful, but it is more of a region specific language. If you aren't doing business in the southwestern United States, then its practically pointless. Someone like me in the Midwest has no use for it. French and Italian are so pointless they aren't even worth mentioning.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you plan on, say, doing business with people who speak those languages. We're a country of immigrants, so we're going to have quite a few people who aren't speaking English here. Additionally, the more international the world becomes the more useful-- moneywise as well as culturewise-- it will be to be able to communicate with people who don't speak English. Expecting everyone to learn our language just because we have a puffed up idea of ourselves is naive at best and xenophobic at worst. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your mistaking what I say. For starters, most people learn those languages in high school. Now, how many high school students honestly know they want to do business with people that speak that language? Besides, for the most part, if your an immigrant to the United States, you pick up the basic English needed to survive or you have your children do it for you. With most immigrant families that I have come across, the native tongue dies out after the first generation, because the children simply learn the English and rarely speak the older language. It isn't a bad thing to expect everyone who lives IN the United States to learn English. And honestly, because it is the established lingua franca, I don't see much harm in asking people around the world to agree to an already established common language (unless your really into all that Revelations stuff). If we don't do it now, we might loose our chance if China surpasses us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::High school students don't know a lot of things about what they do with their lives-- that doesn't mean we should put off letting them choose between Statistics and Calculus until they decide what business they want to go into. I really wish they would've done more foreign language stuff when I was a little kid, though-- I might just be bitter/annoyed at myself that I still don't know Spanish despite having lived in New Mexico for almost 17 years. Oh, and one other thing-- I seriously doubt we're going to have a problem with people needing to learn Chinese. Chinese is terrifyingly difficult. Japanese, Arabic and Farsi, though-- we're going to need a lot more people speaking those really soon.
:::::::I dunno, what happens if China does become the economic juggernaut that some have predicted?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: Oh, and I have one other reason I want everyone to use Spanish: maybe English will come to its senses and pick up a second person pronoun other than "ya'll." Ustedes FTW.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::English language tip: the correct spelling of the second-person pronoun in English is "y'all", not "ya'll". Go back to Mexico where you belong, Kathlene!! --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 09:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, okay, I get what you mean. Thanks! --[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]

Generally speaking, yes. Being bilingual never hurts. People whose native language is English/American have a sort of choice since it's a very widely-used language. Everybody else should at least learn English as a second language. For the English-speaking people, I'd suggest French, German, or something like that, if just to appreciate how easy English is. ;) Overall, it depends on what you want to do, like Elamdri pointed out. But being able to communicate in a language other than your first one can be a true asset. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:In my opinion, being bilingual is just a boon really. There's always going to be SOMEONE who knows the language, so really, unless we come across some sort of shortage on translators, we really don't have a problem. Plus, English is pretty much the lingua franca these days. If you go almost anywhere worth going on this rock, you can probably get by just knowing English ("Getting by" in not really the best way to travel though, so its best to invest in some sort of guide if you can). I would however advise against French. Its rather case specific in it's use, and like Spanish, some English and Italian, it's Latin based, meaning that the words share common roots. This makes Spanish, French, and Italian somewhat easier to learn for English speaking students. Thus, people who speak these as a second language are more "dime a dozen." Non Latin based languages, especially the Asia and Middle Eastern languages, are much harder for English speaking students to learn. This means that people who aren't from those regions, who know those languages, are in higher demand. Also, jobs that tend to require those specific skills tend to be much more high profile careers.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your best bets for a second langauge would be any language formerly used by a colonial power. Spanish, French, German, Portugese, and Dutch are languages that are spoken throughout the world. Some variant of Chinese or Japanese would be helpful too, but good luck learning Chinese languages.

In my experience, Spanish is very useful in business and German not at all. I even have several German clients (Deutsche Bank, Bayerische Hypo- und Veriensbank, Commerzbank, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, and others, but (i) the people who work there disproportionately speak English and (ii) outside of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, virtually no one else does. While I have no clients based in Spanish speaking countries, the number of business opportunities that arise in Latin America are quite substantial. They have an abundance of natural resources and often need first-world help to exploit them. I *wish* I spoke Spanish (or Portuguese, for Brazil alone). --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:34, 09 April 2007 (EDT)
:Key word there being '''exploit'''.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In order to really understand another country or culture it is mandatory to speak its language.

[[Media:Example.ogg]]== YES ==

Yes you should learn one other language then your own, it REALLY makes your mind work hard
and raises the level of your understanding of many things.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:08, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm currently learning both Spanish (in which I'm pretty fluent) and Mandarin (which is way less difficult than some people say it is; no crazy verb tenses to worry about), and I definitely agree that knowing a second language is very important in today's world. The whole "everyone should speak English" idea is wildly outdated. If you compare English verb morphology and possessives to other languages, you see why. English, unless it's your first language, is probably the most difficult language to learn. While I don't meet people every day who only speak Spanish or Mandarin, it's still useful to know the languages and learning a foreign language is intellectually stimulating.
--SapphoChan17

If our country is gaining immigrants and trading with more countries than ever before, learning a second language would be essential to maybe gain a better job or promotion, or maybe to meet new people.
--JPBrick

This being my first edit I apologise if I'm somehow messing up the structure. Being European I figured it might be interesting to add something about my perspective on languages. Since Europe is roughly of the same size as the US (on a very general scale that is), but consists of some 50 nations using some 30 languages our situation is very different from the US, where even the largest neighbour to the North mainly speaks the same language. In Europe most people learn at least one foreign language from third or fourth grade. Personally I took English for ten years (3rd to 12th) and German for 5 (7th to 11th), then some Russian while in the military, and Dutch as an exchange student in the Netherlands during college. Having countries with different languages virtually around the corner shows you the use for knowing languages in a more direct way than a remote possibility in your future professional life. I do believe however that knowing a foreign language is never 'bad' as in being a waste. As someone pointed out above it is not possible to fully understand a culture without knowing the language of the culture. Which language to start with is of course a matter of discussion. Considering the growth of the Chinese impact I guess you could say everone should learn Chinese of some form, but in the US I assume Spanish (or possibly French) might come to more immediate use.
I'd also like to point out that the more languages you know, the easier it becomes to learn more.
--SwedeSteve

Yes, learning a foreign language expands young minds and allows them to learn from other perspectives. In an ever globalizing world, whether you support globalization or not, learning a foreign language is useful for communication. When children grow up they are bound to meet foreigners at some time in their lives. Also, learning a foreign language cause students to use their brains in different ways. It has been proven that different parts of the brain "light up" when people start thinking in different languages. Of course learning a foreign language should be optional but I highly recommend it. I took latin and I'm not going to be a doctor or anything but it gave me an understanding of the origins of the english language and increased my vocabulary. Language and writing is the foundation of civilization and we should do our best to enhance our understanding of the world. -Nonobu

Only if they desire to learn one--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Only if they desire to live in a global community --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Maybe everyone else should just learn a universal language like english. It's not hard or anything.--[[User:Mattsmith|Mattsmith]] 11:36, 6 January 2010 (EST)

haha english is one of the most complex languages on earth (at least, that is spoken regularly)and many people dont have the time to be able to learn it. If a universal language is your goal better to go with somthing like esperanto, which was specifically designed to be easy to learn and be a universal language--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 12:47, 20 January 2010 (EST)