Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2009-05-22T01:35:02Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Negative Reception */

[[Image:Expelled.jpg|300px|thumb|right]]
'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] film charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[intelligent design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[evolution|the theory of evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise, which it goes on to prove with unassailable logic, is that scientists have been met with harsh opposition and/or received punishments from schools, universities and the scientific community merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

*This movie follows Ben Stein as he conclusively proves that far from being a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design is in fact a legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16857&category_id=778</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref> This also refers to privately funded science institutions as well.

Perhaps most infuriatingly true and telling for design opponents is the way the film links Darwin's ideas to [[Social Darwinism]] and destructive, immoral, atheistic ideologies such as Hitler's [[National Socialism]] and [[Marxist]] [[socialism]].<ref> [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778 Expelled - Implications of Neo-Darwinism (4:15)] - Doctors and Scientists explore how the belief in Neo-Darwinism affects our society.</ref>

The film clearly shows that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and intelligent design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms and scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is the most prominent motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand or were deceived by the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film describes how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of militant Marxist atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the film claims the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent support for [[atheism]]. ID theory says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an intelligent designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for providing Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as an interesting theory by 19th century standards, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. One example the films mentions is that modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. The film claims that armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself completely defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

The film's criticism, however, is not merely with Darwin, but also with the militant Marxist atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is far more problematic than the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film. Darwin's theory of Evolution by means of natural selection does not address the issue of the origins of life.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the theory of evolution and the ''Origin of Species'' is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of intelligent design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==Not dogmatic about intelligent design ==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

While makers of the documentary say the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth, they say it calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.<ref> [http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0 'Expelled' Approaches DVD Release Date]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

A victim of the sort of discrimination the film documents, [[Russell Humphreys]] said of the film that:
{{QuoteBox|...it kicked me in the gut. It made me see—no, feel—that I’d grown accustomed to the intolerable. I’d been taking the censorship as something in the natural order of things, and as the suppression increased, I just adjusted to it, like the proverbial frog in hot water. But the movie made me realize that our God-ordained right of free thought and speech is under systematic and increasing attack. By controlling the public “microphone”, as Phil Johnson says, the Darwinists have been hoodwinking our minds.<ref name="RH">Humphreys, Russel, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5975 Not too old to be Expelled] 29th August, 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>}}

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens in America. It grossed $2.97 million US, $2,824 per screen, in its first weekend<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third weekend<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> The producers claim that it was pulled from American theaters due to a lawsuit by Yoko Ono. After the movie won a victory in the lawsuit, a second run release was announced<ref>[http://expelledthemovie.com/rerelease.php Expelled Re-Released]</ref> Initially, Expelled grossed a domestic $7.7 million on a $3.5 million production budget. The promotional budget is unknown. After winning the lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono, ''Expelled'' also began opening in international theaters.

The film is planned to be released on DVD in October 2008.<ref name="RH" />

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the apparent blackballing of the film by people who had never seen it, it is difficult to tell what actual viewers of the film thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings under the above assumption 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box Office Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

As expected for a movie that is not '[[politically correct]]', critics paid to rate movies have been harsh with only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic. These reviews may be seen as reflecting the perceived [[liberal]] bias present in the liberal media.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref> On June 2, 2008, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein (no relation to Ben Stein) ruled in favor of the filmmakers under the "fair use" provision.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0231537020080602</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

*Regarding claims by Dawkins and Myers that filmmakers were tricked into being interviewed for the film, Ruloff has denied any wrongdoing. "There is some serious mistreatment and downright reprehensible behavior going on here," said Ruloff, "but I can assure you it's not coming from us. We're just the ones exposing it." [http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0]

==Film Clips==

WingClips provides several free glimpses into "Expelled".
*[http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16680&category_id=778 Expelled - Genetic Mutation (2:23)] - Scientists discuss how the evolutionary theory of random genetic change contradicts what really occurs in nature.

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locator for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Documentary film]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:English-language films]]

Evolutionism

2009-05-19T03:29:54Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Religion and Evolutionism */

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[evolution|theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The term evolutionism is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>
Roughly twice as many people in the U.S. believe in this type of evolution(30%), as opposed to godless evolution that most atheist believe in(just a mere 13% of people). However both of these combined is still less people than the ammount of people who beleive in Young Earth Creation(48%), as told by The Bible<ref>http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution</ref>.

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' and who make a positive assertion that there is no God, do in fact have a world view; whereas 'weak atheists', who maintain there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him, rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is not done on the basis of there being a God (i.e. [[naturalism]]) (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** For [[Weak Atheism|weak atheists]], science comes before [[Naturalism]]. They (presumably) base their world view on the Science.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm</ref>. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution<ref>http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/2007/05/mike-huckabee-does-not-believe-in.html</ref>, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: "[A]ll theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===
Taking the Bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' ''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.''<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Evolutionism

2009-05-19T03:23:33Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Theistic Evolution */

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[evolution|theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The term evolutionism is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>
Roughly twice as many people in the U.S. believe in this type of evolution(30%), as opposed to godless evolution that most atheist believe in(just a mere 13% of people). However both of these combined is still less people than the ammount of people who beleive in Young Earth Creation(48%), as told by The Bible<ref>http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution</ref>.

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' and who make a positive assertion that there is no God, do in fact have a world view; whereas 'weak atheists', who maintain there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him, rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is not done on the basis of there being a God (i.e. [[naturalism]]) (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** For [[Weak Atheism|weak atheists]], science comes before [[Naturalism]]. They (presumably) base their world view on the Science.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].
===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: "[A]ll theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===
Taking the Bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' ''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.''<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Homosexuality and choice

2009-05-19T00:27:23Z

Cheneypalin12: broken link fix

[[Image:Decision_screen.gif‎|right|thumb|150px|Given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support.]]
'''Homosexuality and choice''' are closely related. When answering the question of is homosexuality a choice one has to consider that homosexual acts between [[consenting adults]] are, by definition, done by choice. Yet the relationship between desire and choice is a matter for debate,<ref>"For the radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is definitely a choice. . . . They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality." — [[Andrew Sullivan]], "The Politics of Homosexuality," New Republic, May 10, 1993 [http://www.queerbychoice.com/] </ref> and activists often attempt to blur the distinction between having a desire and choosing to act on it.

Given that there are people who state they are [[ex-homosexuals]] and given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]], it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Those who make this choice suffer significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

A person may have a craving for alcohol so strong that he feels powerless to resist it (see [[Alcoholism]]), yet people are free to choose to seek treatment for this addiction with drugs, therapy, or support groups. Psychiatrists often concede that [[religion|spirituality]] provides the most effective cure for those who are willing to try it. For example, the [[Christianity|Christian]] group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref>

Whereas alcohol addiction is generally regarded as a [[disease]] and/or a moral failing, homosexuality in recent decades has come to be seen as normal. It is clear to the vast majority of people that overindulging in alcohol hurts the individual as well as society. For example, [[drunk driving]] contributes to auto accidents by increasing reaction time and reducing alertness. Alcoholism is closely related to [[absenteeism]] and [[domestic violence]]. But a political decision was made in the mid-1970s to drop homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In fact, the chief "[[scientific]]" reason given to deny a link between homosexuality and choice is that major American mental health organizations deny the link. In other words, scientists have voted on it, and they disapprove (see [[politicization of science]]).

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. And there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible condemns homosexuality]] and sound [[Bible exegesis]] reveals this matter.

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] stated that 82% of all [[United States|American]] [[Protestantism|Protestant]] ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make".<ref>http://www.ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/Release%206%20Homosexuality.htm</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref name="vatican">http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref name="vatican" />

Dr. Nadia El-Awady reflects the view of many adherents of [[Islam]] when he stated the following:
{{Cquote|Much research has been done over the years to discover the scientific origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact that homosexuality is a matter of choice.<ref>http://www.unav.es/civil/nsd/nosindebate/elawadi.pdf</ref>}}

[[Edmund White]] wrote:

{{Cquote|When I was a young man, in the sixties, before the beginning of [[gay liberation]], I was always in therapy trying to go straight. I was in love with three different women over a ten-year period, and even imagined marrying two often. But after the [[Stonewall Uprising]] in 1969 . . . I revised my thinking entirely: I decided I was completely gay and was only making the women in my life miserable. Following a tendency that Garber rightly criticizes, I denied the authenticity of my earlier heterosexual feelings in the light of my later [[homosexual identity]]. After reading ''Vice Versa'', I find myself willing to reinterpret the narrative of my own personal history.<ref>Edmund White, [http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html "Gender Uncertainties: Marjorie Garber Looks at Bisexuality"] (review of [[Marjorie Garber]]'s book Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life), from The New Yorker, July 17, 1995, p. 81 </ref>}}

==The homosexual agenda and choice==
One of the goals of the [[homosexual agenda]] is to "indoctrinate children in the nation's public schools by convincing kids that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=4365</ref> Because schools fail to warn children of the dangers of homosexuality, and because it is taught that homosexuality is not only "normal" but "healthy" as well, homosexuality starts to seem like a good choice to young school children. To supplement this many schools give homosexuals preferential treatment, for instance protecting a homosexual student from teasing in cases where they would not protect a heterosexual student. Homosexuals are also given exclusive clubs that have the goal of recruiting additional students to homosexuality.<ref>http://www.gsanetwork.org/about/index.html</ref>

These are just some of ways that students are tricked into mistakenly thinking that homosexuality is a desirable lifestyle. As people get older and study the [[Bible|word of God]] they become less susceptible to being misled like this. This is the reason the homosexual agenda targets school children for recruitment into homosexuality.

==Optimal Choice==
The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the [[Homosexuality Research|many undesirable consequences of homosexuality]] and given what the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible states about homosexuality]]. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcome homosexuality]] by the grace of [[God]].

Furthermore, as there is no link between homosexuality and genetics, it very likely that homosexuals will engage in homosexual activitys not because they were born that way(as some claim<ref>www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=97&wlid=5&cn=55</ref>), but rather because they choose to<ref>http://www.socyberty.com/Gay-&-Lesbians/Proof-That-Homosexuality-is-Not-a-Choice.666271</ref>. It is not completely known why homosexuals will engage in this choice, but some speculations are:
* anger at christianity or religion.
* need for attention.
* to avoid serving in the millitary.

==Choice and Genetics==
Proponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] often claim that homosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that homosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting homosexual relationship must be made by choice, even if there is a latent homosexual desire. People with homosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the [[temptation]] to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the [[Bible]].

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality%3F]]

==External links==
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/feelings.html How can feelings ever be chosen?]
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html What is an indirect choice?]

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

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Homosexuality and choice

2009-05-19T00:19:49Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Optimal Choice */

[[Image:Decision_screen.gif‎|right|thumb|150px|Given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support.]]
'''Homosexuality and choice''' are closely related. When answering the question of is homosexuality a choice one has to consider that homosexual acts between [[consenting adults]] are, by definition, done by choice. Yet the relationship between desire and choice is a matter for debate,<ref>"For the radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is definitely a choice. . . . They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality." — [[Andrew Sullivan]], "The Politics of Homosexuality," New Republic, May 10, 1993 [http://www.queerbychoice.com/] </ref> and activists often attempt to blur the distinction between having a desire and choosing to act on it.

Given that there are people who state they are [[ex-homosexuals]] and given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]], it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Those who make this choice suffer significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

A person may have a craving for alcohol so strong that he feels powerless to resist it (see [[Alcoholism]]), yet people are free to choose to seek treatment for this addiction with drugs, therapy, or support groups. Psychiatrists often concede that [[religion|spirituality]] provides the most effective cure for those who are willing to try it. For example, the [[Christianity|Christian]] group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref>

Whereas alcohol addiction is generally regarded as a [[disease]] and/or a moral failing, homosexuality in recent decades has come to be seen as normal. It is clear to the vast majority of people that overindulging in alcohol hurts the individual as well as society. For example, [[drunk driving]] contributes to auto accidents by increasing reaction time and reducing alertness. Alcoholism is closely related to [[absenteeism]] and [[domestic violence]]. But a political decision was made in the mid-1970s to drop homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In fact, the chief "[[scientific]]" reason given to deny a link between homosexuality and choice is that major American mental health organizations deny the link. In other words, scientists have voted on it, and they disapprove (see [[politicization of science]]).

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. And there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible condemns homosexuality]] and sound [[Bible exegesis]] reveals this matter.

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] stated that 82% of all [[United States|American]] [[Protestantism|Protestant]] ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make".<ref>http://www.ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/Release%206%20Homosexuality.htm</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref name="vatican">http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref name="vatican" />

Dr. Nadia El-Awady reflects the view of many adherents of [[Islam]] when he stated the following:
{{Cquote|Much research has been done over the years to discover the scientific origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact that homosexuality is a matter of choice.<ref>http://www.unav.es/civil/nsd/nosindebate/elawadi.pdf</ref>}}

[[Edmund White]] wrote:

{{Cquote|When I was a young man, in the sixties, before the beginning of [[gay liberation]], I was always in therapy trying to go straight. I was in love with three different women over a ten-year period, and even imagined marrying two often. But after the [[Stonewall Uprising]] in 1969 . . . I revised my thinking entirely: I decided I was completely gay and was only making the women in my life miserable. Following a tendency that Garber rightly criticizes, I denied the authenticity of my earlier heterosexual feelings in the light of my later [[homosexual identity]]. After reading ''Vice Versa'', I find myself willing to reinterpret the narrative of my own personal history.<ref>Edmund White, [http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html "Gender Uncertainties: Marjorie Garber Looks at Bisexuality"] (review of [[Marjorie Garber]]'s book Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life), from The New Yorker, July 17, 1995, p. 81 </ref>}}

==The homosexual agenda and choice==
One of the goals of the [[homosexual agenda]] is to "indoctrinate children in the nation's public schools by convincing kids that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=4365</ref> Because schools fail to warn children of the dangers of homosexuality, and because it is taught that homosexuality is not only "normal" but "healthy" as well, homosexuality starts to seem like a good choice to young school children. To supplement this many schools give homosexuals preferential treatment, for instance protecting a homosexual student from teasing in cases where they would not protect a heterosexual student. Homosexuals are also given exclusive clubs that have the goal of recruiting additional students to homosexuality.<ref>http://www.gsanetwork.org/about/index.html</ref>

These are just some of ways that students are tricked into mistakenly thinking that homosexuality is a desirable lifestyle. As people get older and study the [[Bible|word of God]] they become less susceptible to being misled like this. This is the reason the homosexual agenda targets school children for recruitment into homosexuality.

==Optimal Choice==
The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the [[Homosexuality Research|many undesirable consequences of homosexuality]] and given what the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible states about homosexuality]]. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcome homosexuality]] by the grace of [[God]].

Furthermore, as there is no link between homosexuality and genetics, it very likely that homosexuals will engage in homosexual activitys not because they were born that way(as some claim<ref>www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=97&wlid=5&cn=55</ref>), but rather because they choose to<ref>[www.socyberty.com/Gay-&-Lesbians/Proof-That-Homosexuality-is-Not-a-Choice.666271]</ref>. It is not completely known why homosexuals will engage in this choice, but some speculations are:
* anger at christianity or religion.
* need for attention.
* to avoid serving in the millitary.

==Choice and Genetics==
Proponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] often claim that homosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that homosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting homosexual relationship must be made by choice, even if there is a latent homosexual desire. People with homosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the [[temptation]] to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the [[Bible]].

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality%3F]]

==External links==
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/feelings.html How can feelings ever be chosen?]
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html What is an indirect choice?]

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

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2009-05-18T23:58:58Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Opposition to Gay Rights */

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships.

With arguments against homosexuality largely dispelled, the gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).

Gay rights are a favored topic of [[liberals]], and are based on [[moral relativity]], the wrongheaded idea that there is no absolute Right or Wrong.

==History==
[[Harry Hay]] is regarded as the father of the modern gay liberation movement. As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his years 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law, barring "orientation discrimination", prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agency's Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
A poll reveals that a majority of US citizens<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref> disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]</ref>
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children by using liberal tactics such as ''tolerance'' or forcing ''diversity'' programs onto children in schools which strongly encourage the acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The poll did not ask directly about current military policy.

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s or partnerships. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use [[deceit]], notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

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

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Satan

2009-05-18T23:52:41Z

Cheneypalin12: added comma to make it make grammatical sense

[[Image:GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile.jpg|right|thumb|Gustave Doré's depiction of Satan from John Milton's Paradise Lost.]]
'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", meaning the "accuser", "tempter", "persecutor", "calumniator" or "adversary") was a member of the [[divine council]] of God referenced in the [[Old Testament]] in [[Job]]. He is referenced 11 times in Job and 4 other times in the Old Testament. The [[New Testament]] mentions Satan 34 times in all starting with the first book [[Matthew]] and ending with the last [[Revelation]]. In the Christian tradition he rebelled against [[God]] and is now the enemy of God and man alike. He is the father of lies and no good is found in him. He leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s) who know their days are numbered before they will be cast in the [[lake of fire]] and they seek to take as many humans as possible with them. Those who worship Satan are called [[satanism | Satanists]].

The three classic defenses against Satan are:

* mockery, which Satan cannot withstand due to his pride
* sunlight or exposure, from which Satan hides
* the [[Holy Spirit]], meaning "The Advocate" (i.e., defense lawyer), or the [[Armor of God]]<ref>Ephesians 6:1-17</ref>.

Note that Satan lacks self-restraint, which often leads him to failure. In addition, Satan delights in [[deceit]], even to the point of causing his downfall.

== History and Goals ==

In [[Christianity]] Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). In the book of [[Genesis]], Satan takes the form of a snake and tempts Eve with fruit from a tree. This causes sin to come into the world. Satan, in the Book of Job, listens to God speak highly of Job and accuses Job to God before the host of angels that Job praises God only because he is blessed and would curse God if he was forced to suffer. God allows Satan to do what he will except to spare his life, and Satan causes Job to suffer immensely. (Job remained true to God through his hardships; Satan accused him further and punished him further, but could not get Job to break).

[[Jesus]] makes references to demonic possession on multiple occasions that He then casts out. Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth even today. The Catholic church believes that priests (and sometimes only bishops) are able to [[exorcise]] this possession through Jesus.

In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails. Jesus warns extensively to beware of Satan as does [[Paul]].

Satan, is also called by several different names (the Devil, deceiver, Bealzebub, Beelzebul, Lucifer, Dis, [[Asmodeus]], Abaddon, "Old Scratch," the Crooked One, etc).

The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions.

== Lucifer ==

'''Lucifer''' is a name literally meaning "Son of the Morning" (or "Light-Bearer"), and is mentioned in the [[Bible]] only in the [[book of Isaiah]] (Isaiah 14:12). Though in Christian tradition Lucifer is equated with Satan, the immediate context of the passage is Isaiah's prophecy against the king of Babylon, and the name "Lucifer" was not present at all in the original manuscripts (in the Latin Vulgate, the phrase "Son of the Morning" was transliterated as a proper name).

Whomever Lucifer may be, the Isaiah makes strong prophecy against him, condemning him for 5 pronouncements:

* I will ascend into [[heaven]]
* I will exalt my throne above the stars of God
* I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
* I will ascend above the heights of the clouds
* I will be like the most High

Those who take this passage to be a reference to Satan believe that it gives more history of what caused his downfall, that he was created by God as one of His most powerful angels (possibly a Seraphim), but that he fell from grace after he in his pride rebelled against his Creator. Some, however, believe that there is no grounding to interpret the passage as a history of Satan, citing that the passage uses highly figurative and poetic language that was meant as a prophecy against Babylon and nothing more.

[[Image:Paradise Lost 12.jpg|right|thumb|''The fall of Lucifer'' by Gustave Doré.]]

== Jewish Views ==

In the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who faithfully serves God as a prosecuting attorney - one who accuses men of wickedness and impiety. At the direction of God, Satan may be permitted to test these accusations, such as in Job. In this view, Satan's goal is not to lead men away from their faithfulness to God, but merely to reveal the true depths of their devotion, although in [[I Chronicles]] 21:1 Satan provoked [[David]] to take a [[census]] of the people of Israel against the will of God and 70,000 men are slain because of it.

== Notes ==
<references/>
[[category:Abrahamic Religions]]
{{DivineComedy}}

Scientist

2009-05-18T23:38:12Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Science and Christianity */

A '''scientist''' is someone who practices [[science]].

== Scope of term ==

Depending on the context, the term "scientist" might refer to anyone using the [[scientific method]] or anyone with a qualification in a field of science.
In most cases, both will be true, but in other cases only one or the other may be true.

== Origin of term ==

The invention of the word ''scientist'' is often credited to [[William Whewell]] (1794-1866), who was himself a scientist as well as a moral [[philosopher]] and [[Anglican]] priest. In 1858, he wrote:

:As we cannot use ''physician'' for a cultivator of physics, I have referred to him as a ''Physicist.''
:We need very much[sic] a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a ''Scientist.'' Thus we might say that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.<ref>Whewell, William (1858), ''Novum Organon Renovatum: Being the second part of the philosophy of the inductive sciences,'' J. W. Parker and Son, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22881657&id=xYMKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA14-PA338&lpg=RA14-PA338&dq=%22william+whewell%22+scientist p. 338]</ref>

Prior to this, scientists were usually called "natural philosophers" or "natural historians." (The oldest scientific journal in the world, established in 1665, is entitled ''Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.'' Among its early numbers are letters from Leeuwenhoek describing his discovery of [[microorganism]]s).

== Science and Christianity ==

Many scientists have been devout Christians or held a belief in God ([[Isaac Newton]]<ref> http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html</ref> or monk Gregor Mendel<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gregor_Mendel.html</ref>). Modern science is considered by some adherents of traditional [[Christianity]] to have a strong bias towards atheism, as it attempts to explain phenomena without reference to God. A 1998 study indicates that among U. S. scientists belief in God has declined between 1914 and 1998, with 7% believing, 72.2% disbelieving, and 20.8% professing doubt or agnosticism.<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Same-sex marriage

2009-05-18T05:19:27Z

Cheneypalin12: (reference was broken, appeared on the page where it shouldn't have)

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some Atheistic liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the honest and moral christians view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." <ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Liberal bias

2009-05-18T05:15:30Z

Cheneypalin12: (im pretty sure wikipedia fits the list for liberal bias)

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools which will be elaborated on shortly. It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.


Such a bias could manifest itself as one or more of the following:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention 
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention 
*an attempt to be consistent by treating men and women alike
*an obsession with race where images are used
 

==The  Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Wikipedia]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]
* [[NPR]]
* [[Associated Press]]
* [[National Academy of Sciences]]
* [[Guardian]] ([[UK]] news organization)

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is rampant in American university campuses. Leftist [[professor values|professors]] dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===Associated Press===

AP has a consistent anti-police bias, for example, referring to "the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day". Their article is designed to create sympathy for a person who talked and acted like he had a [[gun]] and then resisted arrest. The AP account reads more like an [[editorial]] than a straight [[news story]]. It is not until 400 words into the story that you read the judge's reason for acquitting the accused cops. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting]

AP does a biased piece on GOP VP nominee [[Sarah Palin]]. First paragraph includes ''"the latest in a string of disclosures that left the McCain campaign defending the thoroughness of its background check "''. There isn't a string of disclosures. Everything about her was public with the exception of the pregnant teen daughter. Second paragraph, ''"her husband, Todd, had been arrested for drunken driving two decades ago"'', pathetic tabloid smear. ''"little experience"'', liberal media always ready to drive that message home with Palin, but rigorously defend [[Obama]]'s lack of experience as the real heartbeat-away from the [[Presidency]]. ''"In a brief respite from partisanship, Democratic rival Barack Obama weighed in"'' The [[AP]] should have just wrote- ''Obama, staying high above political mudslinging because he is just that good.''. ''"the pregnancy of Palin's daughter, Bristol, was aimed at rebutting Internet rumors that Palin's own youngest son, born in April, was actually the daughter's."'' AP giving credibility to Obama supporters' [[Daily Kos]]'s gross slander, actually like it so much, repeat twice in the article. "The national convention... already had been relegated to a distant second to the hurricane on TV." AP thinks Americans can care less about the GOP. ''"McCain's team dispatched a dozen operatives and lawyers to Alaska, fueling speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin's past was incomplete..."'' Rumors masquerading as worthy news with an actual GOP rebuttal cited "Palin underwent a ``full and complete'' review." <ref>[http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=DC-top&idq=/ff/story/0001/20080901/2353662008.htm&maxphotos=6&phototerm='bristol+palin'&maxstories=4&storyterm='sarah+palin' Palin says daughter, 17, is 5 months pregnant] AP, September 1, 2008</ref>

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
In July, 2008, the [[New York Times]] rejected an opinion piece written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref> This came after the [[New York Times]] had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by [[McCain]] since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries. The reason the [[New York Times]] cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/</ref>

===LA Times===

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the [[John Edwards]] affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December of 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8th, the mainsteam media finally reported the [[scandal]], including the [[LA Times]]. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-na-edwardsmedia9-2008aug09,0,7463269.story Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair] LA Times, August 9, 2008</ref> But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow [[liberal]] [[Democrats]] by the LA Times is more important than being a honest news organization.

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC, CBS, and NBC together have unloaded more than a thousand stories on Obama’s presidential campaign but not a single story devoted to examining Obama’s abysmal abortion record. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2008/10/14/bozell-column-whos-fierce-abortion Bozell Column: Who's 'Fierce' on Abortion?] NewsBusters.org, October 14, 2008</ref>

===Name That Party===

The liberal media refuses to identify the political party in their stories when a Democrat is involved in a scandal. Most times it is buried deep within the article so as to remain anonymous to the audience. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/03/name-party-dem-ma-state-senator-charged-sexual-assaults Name That Party: Dem MA State Senator Charged in Sexual Assaults] NewsBusters.org, August 3, 2008</ref> The [[Associated Press]] is the most guilty of this practice but it is in fact modus operandi by all liberal media sources. Compare that with Republican scandals which the liberal media will always includes the party name in its headlines or within the first sentence or first paragraph.

=== Liberal Media - Apostles of Atheism ===
The Media Research Center released a study in 2008 reporting pro-[[atheism]] bias by major press outlets in the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTxORumTarg</ref> The study is not surprising given the liberal bias that commonly exists in the major media outlets.

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Professor values]]

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias
*[http://www.ihatethemedia.com IHateTheMedia.com] - Pointing out Liberal Bias daily

{{liberalism}}
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberalism]]

Radiometric dating

2009-05-18T05:03:39Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Acceptance and reliability */

'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

== Principles ==

No method exists for ''measuring'' [[time]], except by measuring it as it is passing.
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.

The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at a measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.

For example, to work out how long a [[candle]] has been burning, the following steps would be needed:
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.
# Measure how long the candle is now.
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.

For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps). For example, [[uranium]] will eventually decay into [[lead]]. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate. Calculations involve the well-established function for exponential decay: <math>F</math><math>t</math><math>=e</math><math>-kt</math>.

== Key assumptions ==

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.

=== Initial quantities ===

One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).

In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C14 to C12, but the same principle otherwise applies.

=== Rate of decay ===

Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant.
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See Walker, 2000.</ref> and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.
The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

=== Outside influences ===

It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.

For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.

== Calibration ==
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.

Carbon dating, with its much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.

Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.

Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.

However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.

[[Young earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.

== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.For instance radioactive dating says the earth is 4.6 billion years old<ref>hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/MollyMoran.shtml></ref> while the bible(the infallible word of God<ref>www.believers.org/believe/bel191.htm</ref>) quotes the world to be around 6-10 thousand years old.<ref>www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20year%20old%20earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm</ref>
{{QuoteBox|C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method...<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}

A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}

One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and again came up with a date of 40,000 years.

The fallibility of dating methods is also illustrated by the fact that dating laboratories are known to improve the likelihood of getting a "correct" date by asking for the expected date of the item. For example, the Sample Record Sheet for the University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory asks for the estimated age, the basis for the estimate, and the maximum and minimum acceptable ages.<ref>[http://www.radiocarbondating.com/submission%20form%202003.pdf University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Sample Record Sheet]</ref>

==Some major methods of radiometric dating==

There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]

== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment], ''Journal of Creation'' 14(1):4–5, April 2000.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Young Earth Creationism

2009-05-18T04:50:44Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Contrasted with evolution */

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not garenteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
*Young Earth creationism is based on the bible, the infallible word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of [[sedimentary]] rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Liberal bias

2009-05-18T04:36:56Z

Cheneypalin12: /* The Media Confronts Liberal Bias */

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools which will be elaborated on shortly. It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.


Such a bias could manifest itself as one or more of the following:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention 
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention 
*an attempt to be consistent by treating men and women alike
*an obsession with race where images are used
 

==The  Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]<ref>www.cablenewslies.com/cnn.htm</ref>
* [[NBC]] News<ref>eddriscoll.com/archives/010401.php</ref>
* [[LA Times]]<ref>www.laobserved.com/archive/2003/05/la_times_bias_m.php</ref>
* [[Michael Moore]]<ref>www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/arts_life/story.html?id=799f6d31-3e43-4d4d-a821-e7fb18db6938</ref>
* [[The Daily Show]]<ref>forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=13128&thread.id=37</ref>
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]<ref>answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090418033013AATN6TE</ref>
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[Wikipedia]]<ref>www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_wikipedia</ref>
* [[Colbert Report]]
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[Chicago Tribune]]
* [[BBC]]<ref>www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/</ref>
* [[NPR]]
* [[Associated Press]]
* [[National Academy of Sciences]]
* [[Guardian]] ([[UK]] news organization)

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is rampant in American university campuses. Leftist [[professor values|professors]] dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===Associated Press===

AP has a consistent anti-police bias, for example, referring to "the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day". Their article is designed to create sympathy for a person who talked and acted like he had a [[gun]] and then resisted arrest. The AP account reads more like an [[editorial]] than a straight [[news story]]. It is not until 400 words into the story that you read the judge's reason for acquitting the accused cops. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting]

AP does a biased piece on GOP VP nominee [[Sarah Palin]]. First paragraph includes ''"the latest in a string of disclosures that left the McCain campaign defending the thoroughness of its background check "''. There isn't a string of disclosures. Everything about her was public with the exception of the pregnant teen daughter. Second paragraph, ''"her husband, Todd, had been arrested for drunken driving two decades ago"'', pathetic tabloid smear. ''"little experience"'', liberal media always ready to drive that message home with Palin, but rigorously defend [[Obama]]'s lack of experience as the real heartbeat-away from the [[Presidency]]. ''"In a brief respite from partisanship, Democratic rival Barack Obama weighed in"'' The [[AP]] should have just wrote- ''Obama, staying high above political mudslinging because he is just that good.''. ''"the pregnancy of Palin's daughter, Bristol, was aimed at rebutting Internet rumors that Palin's own youngest son, born in April, was actually the daughter's."'' AP giving credibility to Obama supporters' [[Daily Kos]]'s gross slander, actually like it so much, repeat twice in the article. "The national convention... already had been relegated to a distant second to the hurricane on TV." AP thinks Americans can care less about the GOP. ''"McCain's team dispatched a dozen operatives and lawyers to Alaska, fueling speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin's past was incomplete..."'' Rumors masquerading as worthy news with an actual GOP rebuttal cited "Palin underwent a ``full and complete'' review." <ref>[http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=DC-top&idq=/ff/story/0001/20080901/2353662008.htm&maxphotos=6&phototerm='bristol+palin'&maxstories=4&storyterm='sarah+palin' Palin says daughter, 17, is 5 months pregnant] AP, September 1, 2008</ref>

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
In July, 2008, the [[New York Times]] rejected an opinion piece written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref> This came after the [[New York Times]] had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by [[McCain]] since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries. The reason the [[New York Times]] cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/</ref>

===LA Times===

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the [[John Edwards]] affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December of 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8th, the mainsteam media finally reported the [[scandal]], including the [[LA Times]]. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-na-edwardsmedia9-2008aug09,0,7463269.story Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair] LA Times, August 9, 2008</ref> But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow [[liberal]] [[Democrats]] by the LA Times is more important than being a honest news organization.

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC, CBS, and NBC together have unloaded more than a thousand stories on Obama’s presidential campaign but not a single story devoted to examining Obama’s abysmal abortion record. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2008/10/14/bozell-column-whos-fierce-abortion Bozell Column: Who's 'Fierce' on Abortion?] NewsBusters.org, October 14, 2008</ref>

===Name That Party===

The liberal media refuses to identify the political party in their stories when a Democrat is involved in a scandal. Most times it is buried deep within the article so as to remain anonymous to the audience. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/03/name-party-dem-ma-state-senator-charged-sexual-assaults Name That Party: Dem MA State Senator Charged in Sexual Assaults] NewsBusters.org, August 3, 2008</ref> The [[Associated Press]] is the most guilty of this practice but it is in fact modus operandi by all liberal media sources. Compare that with Republican scandals which the liberal media will always includes the party name in its headlines or within the first sentence or first paragraph.

=== Liberal Media - Apostles of Atheism ===
The Media Research Center released a study in 2008 reporting pro-[[atheism]] bias by major press outlets in the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTxORumTarg</ref> The study is not surprising given the liberal bias that commonly exists in the major media outlets.

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Professor values]]

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias
*[http://www.ihatethemedia.com IHateTheMedia.com] - Pointing out Liberal Bias daily

{{liberalism}}
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberalism]]

Same-sex marriage

2009-05-18T04:20:47Z

Cheneypalin12: added reference

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some Atheistic liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the honest and moral christians view of marriage out of the law<ref>www.atheistrev.com/2009/01/opposition-to-gay-marriage-is-bigotry.html</ref>. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,''<ref>Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Young Earth Creationism

2009-05-18T04:16:24Z

Cheneypalin12: added referance

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not garenteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of [[sedimentary]] rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Same-sex marriage

2009-05-18T04:12:30Z

Cheneypalin12: broken referance

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some Atheistic liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the honest and moral christians view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,''<ref>Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Fox News Channel

2009-05-17T00:31:31Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Founding */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced," carries bipartisan shows like [[Hannity and Colmes]], and daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans. Fox News is perhaps the only mainstream news station that hasn't succombed to the obvious Liberal Bias that can be plainly viewed in such things controlled by the liberal media as PBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, WIKIPEDIA, The Daily Show, The BBC, The Colbert Report, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune ect.

Fox News has dominated the [[ratings]] of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media [[tycoon]] Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''[[Outfoxed]]'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with [[price-gouging]] and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. [[Greta Van Susteren]]'s politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentaros, such as host [[Alan Colmes]], news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with [[Greta Van Susteren]] is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the [[Rev. Franklin Graham]], [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on [[Pat Ireland]] and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a [[Pew Foundation]] study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist [[Brian Anderson]]. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' [[oil-for-food]] initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|300px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business News]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his on opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Science

2009-05-17T00:18:12Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Naturalism and science */

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."<ref>Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world, and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is cabable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]].
In addition, [[Christianity]] [[Christianity and Science|played a pivotal role in the development of modern science]]. However, in recent years, American scientists have been much more [[atheism|atheistic]] as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The generally accepted scientific procedure is:

* Observations of an unknown phenomenon are made
* A hypothesis is made to explain the observations
* A experiment or experiments are carried out to test the hypothesis.
** If multiple experiments support the hypothesis it is considered a theory
** If the experiment does not support the hypothesis it is either rewritten or discarded
* If at a later date evidence is produced which contradicts the theory, it is modified or discarded and a new hypothesis is developed

One of the fundamental tenets of science is that no theory is absolute; theories are constantly changing in response to the observation of new evidence. Hence, a scientific theory that begins with an immutable conclusion and attempts to "fit the facts" to that argument does not fall within the realm of true scientific research.<ref>Examples would include the claims that God created the world and that all living things evolved from a common ancestor.</ref>

On the other hand, in the absence of repeatable experiments being able to be done (past events such the very beginning of the universe), scientists believe in following the inference to the best explanation.{{fact}}

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.However now science is used by opinionated atheist and liberals as an excuse to deny the miracles of God and denounce important christian views such as the creation of the world, as told in Genesis. Furthermore some "scientist" are using science to claim outragous lies such as homosexuality is not a choice, which clearly goes against what is said in the bible, the absolute word of God.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied. This system in science is set up so that godless scientist can use this system to deny God for the various deeds he does. In fact some scientist will go even further to denounce God by claiming that some carbon dating nonsense proves that the earth is much older than it is as stated in Genesis, claiming that their carbon dating is more trustworthy than the infallible word of God.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''a priori'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrepect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Young Earth Creationism

2009-05-16T22:56:01Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Contrasted with evolution */

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not garenteed that the great flood did take place.

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of [[sedimentary]] rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Young Earth Creationism

2009-05-16T22:54:11Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Scientific */

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not garenteed that the great flood did take place.

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be no 14C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without 14C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of [[sedimentary]] rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

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

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Agnosticism

2009-05-16T22:50:37Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Atheism and agnosticism */

[[Image:65375.jpg|thumb|David Hume]]
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of God, and in stronger forms, the assertion that God's existence is not capable of being known (unknowable).

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore he is not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''. However, the stronger form does have a truth value, and therefore can be right or wrong. Either the proponent of stronger agnosticism is correct, that the existence of God is not capable of being known, or he is incorrect.

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of Darwinism.</ref> from the Greek roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref> [[David Hume]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] were famous agnostics. Two present famous agnostics are [[Larry King]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the United States, 32% of people in France and 35% of people in Great Britain self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref>
{{Clear}}

==Atheism and agnosticism==

Some agnostics bristle at the term ''atheist''. They say they aren't atheists, because they don't "believe that God does not exist" but rather "neither believe nor disbelieve".

Agnostics differ from regular [[Atheism|atheists]] in that they do not deny God's existence, but rather just reject christianity and other religions in general, claiming that there is no proof of any of those religious claims and dont wish to beleive unless proof comes along.

Many religious believers make no distinction among non-believers. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is anyone who doesn't believe in God.

Among those who have not decided whether to believe in God, or to disbelieve in Him, there are two main groups:
#Those who simply haven't made a decision
#Those who declare no rational decision is possible, on the grounds that the existence of God is not knowable.

[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness==
[[Per capita]] atheists and agnostics in the [[United States]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists]].

== See also ==

*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

==External links==
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/agnostic.html Origin of the word 'agnostic']
*[http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm Famous Atheists, Freethinkers, Diests and Agnostics]
*[http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page Celebrity Atheist List]
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-there-a-god Opposing Views: Is There a God?]

==References==

<References/>

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

Same-sex marriage

2009-05-16T22:35:32Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Morality */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some Atheistic liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the honest and moral christians view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.{{fact}}

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].{{fact}}

One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate <ref>Privileged Communication, Glossary of Legal Terms, Child Welfare Manual. http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section7/glossary/pq.htm&usg=AFQjCNFJEcaFZh0PuFiqrbUh2JyAUhD_yA</ref>, anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" <ref>Media Crossed the Line in Haggard Outing, Thursday November 20, 2008. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5152861,00.html</ref> fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Same-sex marriage

2009-05-16T22:33:38Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Morality */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement." Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. Some Atheistic liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the honest and moral christians view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[Maine]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage is legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref> [[California]] has repealed same-sex marriage through 2008's [[Proposition 8]].

As of 2009, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine also provide civil unions or "domestic partnerships." Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.{{fact}}

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].{{fact}}

One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate <ref>Privileged Communication, Glossary of Legal Terms, Child Welfare Manual. http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section7/glossary/pq.htm&usg=AFQjCNFJEcaFZh0PuFiqrbUh2JyAUhD_yA</ref>, anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" <ref>Media Crossed the Line in Haggard Outing, Thursday November 20, 2008. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5152861,00.html</ref> fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Rush Limbaugh

2009-05-16T22:20:47Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Politics */

[[Image:Limbaugh.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]
'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a [[conservative]] [[American]] [[radio]] talk show host. Limbaugh has risen to the top of the ratings heap as a reliably [[conservative]] voice in a talk radio media environment dominated by conservatives. In his sharp criticisms on the [[Obama Administration]] Limbaugh maintains his position as one of the ''de facto'' leaders of the [[Republican]] opposition.

== Radio ==

Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its incisive criticism of the follies of [[liberalism]] and his cogent exposure of [[liberal]] [[propaganda]] and [[deceit]]. He is often at odds with [[liberal]] activist [[Al Franken]]<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. He habitually refers to [[feminists]] who support [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as having "talent on loan from God".

Limbaugh's style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the [[Republican Party]]'s 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.
Limbaugh's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 16 million listeners weekly, making him the #1 Radio Talk Show Host in America.
<ref>[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online</ref> In July 2008, Rush announced "he has renewed his contract with Premiere Radio Networks and Clear Channel Radio, continuing syndication of his show 'many years into the future.'" <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326 Rush Renews Contract], ''[[Human Events]]'', July, 2, 2008</ref>

===Obama to Fail===
Rush made national headlines when he was asked to write 400 words for a newspaper column about Obama's plans. He said he didn't need 400 words, he needs just four, "I hope he fails." He immediately came under attack as an unpatriotic obstructionist. Rush explained that what he meant was, if Obama is for socialistic policies and against capitalist policies, of course he could not support those policies.

Rush addressed [[CPAC]] and further discussed his stance that generated so much attention. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/limbaugh-leader-obama-chief-staff-calls-talk-host-barrier-progress/ Limbaugh the Leader? Obama Chief of Staff] Fox News, March 01, 2009</ref> {{cquote|''' ''"Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. ... The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So where is it -- what is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"'' '''}}

== The Harry Reid Letter ==
On October 2, 2007, [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Harry Reid]], [[Democrat|D]]-[[Nevada|NV]], wrote a letter to Mark P. Mays, President and CEO of Clear Channel Communications, who is Rush Limbaugh's chief patron. In it Senator Reid essentially demanded that Mr. Mays order Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for remarks he made concerning "phony soldiers."<ref name=ReidText>Reid, Harry, ''et al.'' "[http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699 Letter to Mark P. Mays of Clear Channel Communications]." [http://reid.senate.gov/ Electronic Office of US Senator Harry Reid], October 2, 2007. Retrieved October 19, 2007.</ref> A ''phony soldier'' is someone who is not a soldier at all but is pretending to be one, especially in a public forum. Such activity is unlawful, and the [[Jesse MacBeth|person]] whose activity prompted Mr. Limbaugh's remarks has since been convicted and punished.<ref name=PhonySoldier>Limbaugh, Rush. "[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html The Anatomy of a Smear: 'Phony Soldiers' Is a Phony Story]." ''[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh Official Site]'', accessed December 25, 2007.</ref>

==Politics==
Limbaugh endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Limbaugh%20Endorses%20Romney Limbaugh Endorses Romney], [[Melanie Hunter]], ''[[CNSNews]]'', February 05, 2008</ref> He was often critical of [[John McCain]] during the Republican primaries, but like most proud americans who didn't want the president of the United States of America to be a socialist muslim, he supported him in the general election.

== Painkiller addiction ==

On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. <ref>The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ "Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication"</ref> Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged "doctor shopping" to procure prescription medications were dropped on the condition that he continue treatment for his addiction.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml</ref> The [[MSM]] as well as Democratic politicians consistently use this information to crudely and unfairly attack Limbaugh.

== Sports ==

Limbaugh is an avid sports fan, particularly football. He briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after comments made regarding Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received widespread criticism.

{{cquote|''' ''"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."'' '''}}

After McNabb's response, "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal," significant pressure was put upon Limbaugh to resign. <ref>http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html</ref>

== Other Media Work ==

The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

Rush occasionally writes op-ed pieces for the [[Wall Street Journal]].

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

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Rush Limbaugh|Articles about '''Rush Limbaugh''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Rush Derangement Syndrome]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
*[http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919 Rush's 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech], ''C-SPAN'', February 28, 2009

{{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]

User:Cheneypalin12

2009-05-16T22:16:04Z

Cheneypalin12: Created page with 'I am a proud patriotic, country-loving american who doesn't want the liberal bias that is being injected into our public schools corrupting the youth.'

I am a proud patriotic, country-loving american who doesn't want the liberal bias that is being injected into our public schools corrupting the youth.

Christian persecution

2009-05-16T22:13:11Z

Cheneypalin12: /* United States */

'''Christian persecution''' has occurred from the very beginnings of [[Christianity]] and continues today. Currently more than 200 million Christians around the globe suffer imprisonment, abuse and sometimes death because of their faith.<ref>[http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/Persecution/ International Persecution of Christians]</ref>
==Ancient Rome==
Early [[Christian]] persecution was severe in Ancient [[Roman]]. In Ancient Rome, Christians were most commonly executed by crucifixion and being put in arenas with lions. The emperor [[Nero]] was one of the most notorious persecutors.

This persecution continued up through the fourth century, when Constantine's [[Edict of Milan]] in 317 A.D. promulgated a doctrine of religious tolerance. In 393 A.D., Christianity became the state religion of Rome, gaining strength after Constantine's conquest of Rome from his fellow ''caesars'' of the time.<ref>"... in 391 AD, Christianity became the official, and only, state religion of the empire." [http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Rome__Le.htm The Legacy of Rome] </ref>

Persecution generally ended in the Roman Empire in 317 A.D., with the [[Edict of Milan]].
==Reformation Europe==
During the [[Protestant Reformation]] many martyrs to the faith on both sides were persecuted and murdered.
==Modern world==
In contemporary period, Christians continue to be attacked by governments in communist countries like [[China]] and [[North Korea]], and by hostile religious forces inclusing Moslems in Africa and Hindus in [[India]].
==Africa==
Large scale rioting and violence between Moslem and Christian communities are common in parts of Africa, such as [[Nigeria]] and [[Sudan]].
==Bulgaria==
In [[Bulgaria]], there have been incidents of persecution of Christians. In 1998, local Church of God in the town of Vratza was attacked by skinheads.<ref name=CSWBC>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=166 Bulgarian Christians under attack from skinheads and ultra-nationalists]</ref> On July 21st, 2004, the Bulgarian police force invaded the Bulgarian Orthodox churches across the nation and forcibly dragged out over 160 priests.<ref name=CSWB>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/country.asp?s=id&urn=Bulgaria Bulgaria]</ref>
==China==
In [[China]], independent Christians face fines, imprisonment, torture and forced labor.<ref name=CSWCHINA>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/country.asp?s=id&urn=China China]</ref> Churches are often shut down,<ref name=CSWCHINA/> confiscation of church property is prevalent.<ref name=VM>[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1096.htm Persecution Of Christians Around The World]</ref>

==Egypt==
The Coptic Orthodox church is the largest Christian group in [[Egypt]].<ref name=CSWE>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/country.asp?s=id&urn=Egypt Egypt]</ref> Majority of the violence against Christians in the 1990s were from Islamic extremists.<ref name=CSWE/> However there have been some incidents of violence against Christians due to communal tensions.<ref name=CSWE/> In 2007, Coptic Christians in Egypt were attacked by some Muslim rioters.<ref name=CSWECC>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=645 Egyptian Coptic Christians Attacked by Violent Mobs]</ref>

==India==
''See also [[Hindu fanatics]]''

[[Hindus]] form the religious majority in [[India]]. Proponents of the ''Hindutva'' ideology, often called ''Hindu fascism'', want to convert India into a Hindu nation in which other religions must assimilate to the Hindu religion, race and culture and seek to establish a cultural hegemony of Hinduism at the expense of other religions.<ref name=CSWI>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=report&id=73 A submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review: India]</ref> In India, Christians have faced repeated attacks from Hindus.<ref name=FOXHEAIC>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318549,00.html Hindu Extremists Attack Indian Churches, Torch Home of Prominent Christian]</ref> Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons, aged 8 and 10, were burned to death in [[Orissa]] in 1999 by Hindus.<ref name=FOXHEAIC/> In 2007, Hindus attacked Christians in the state of Orissa.<ref name=FOXHEAIC/> Ninety-five churches were destroyed in the attack.<ref name=CSWCVO>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=report&id=72 Communal violence in Kandhamal District, Orissa: India]</ref>

==Iraq==
Persecution of the country's Christian minority has increased dramatically since the 2003 American invasion of [[Iraq]]. Christian archbishops were abducted in January 2005 <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7271658.stm Archbishop abducted in Iraq]</ref> and February 2008<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4182629.stm Iraqi Chaldean archbishop seized ]</ref>. The Pope told President George Bush that "Particularly in Iraq, Christian families and communities are feeling increasing pressure from insecurity, aggression and a sense of abandonment."

==Myanmar==
[[Myanmar]] also known as [[Burma]] is ruled by a highly repressive, authoritarian military regime. The country was placed under concern by the International Religious Freedom Act in 1999 and a wide array of sanctions are in place for its violations of human rights. Population estimated 6 percent Christianity and rapidly growing. The junta has not allowed permanent foreign religious missions to operate and confiscated all remaining assets since the 1960's. Proselytizing is forbidden, and the printing of Bibles in the country is strictly prohibited. Disobeying the juntu and Burmese Christians will be killed, imprisoned and other human rights violations. <ref>[http://www.christianfreedom.org/cfi-news/1-latest-news/391-the-demand-for-bibles-in-burma-is-growing-despite-enormous-persecution-of-christians.html The Demand for Bibles in Burma is Growing Despite Enormous Persecution of Christians] Christian Freedom International</ref>

==North Korea==
There are approximately 12,000 practicing Christians in [[North Korea]].<ref name=BBCCNK>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1744847.stm Eyewitness: Christianity in North Korea]</ref> Christians often face torture, imprisonment, and are often murdered.<ref name=CSWNK>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/country.asp?s=id&urn=North_Korea North Korea]</ref> According to human rights organizations, outside the officially sanctioned churches, Christians in North Korea can face harsh penalties.<ref name=BBCCNK/>

==Pakistan==
Christians in [[Pakistan]] have come under increasing attack in recent years.<ref name=CSWPAKISTAN>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=report&id=56 Religious freedom update - Pakistan]</ref> In 2004, three Christians were killed due to attacks by Islamists.<ref name=CSWPAKISTAN/> Several Christian leaders in Baluchestan received threats.<ref name=CSWPAKISTAN/> The Blasphemy Laws of Pakistan under Section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code is used as a tool for Christian persecution.<ref name=CSWPAKISTAN/> Some of the madrassas in Pakistan promote Islamic terrorism.<ref name=CSWPAKISTAN/> President [[Pervez Musharraf]] recently in a speech called for scrutiny of the Blasphemy laws and to reform the madrassas.<ref name=CSWPAKISTAN/>

==Turkey==
In [[Turkey]], there have been incidents of persecution of Christians. In 2006 and 2007, one Catholic Priest and three Protestant evangelists were killed; churches were also attacked.<ref name=CSWT>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/country.asp?s=id&urn=Turkey Turkey]</ref> In 2007, one German and two Turkish Christians were killed by Islamic extremists in Southeast Turkey.<ref name=CSWGTC>[http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=615 One German and two Turkish Christians killed in Southeast Turkey]</ref>

==United States==
Traditional Christian values are consistently ridiculed by [[Hollywood]], the [[Mainstream Media]] and [[Liberal]] Activists.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/5392_90.htm Survey: Americans Believe Religious Values Are 'Under Attack'] Anti-Defamation League, November 14, 2008</ref>

Don Feder, founder of a group called Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, used his condemnation of the 2005 film "V for Vendetta" to say, "It's very much in keeping with what has become Hollywood's standard anti-Christian message – that Christians are hypocritical hate-mongers, with tendencies toward violence, who are waiting to seize the reins of government and persecute unbelievers."<ref> see [ http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/05/15/2009-05-15_is_hollywood_antichristian_angels__demons_sparks_debate_anew.html#ixzz0FeJYczRf&B David Hinckley, "Is Hollywood anti-Christian?" ''New York Daily News'' May 15th 2009]</ref>

David Limbaugh says, "This anti-Christian bias manifests itself in unflattering portrayals of Christians in Hollywood films and entertainment television."<ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/2/102405.shtml The Media and Hollywood War Against Christianity] NewsMax, October 2, 2003</ref>

Further anti-Christian bias can be seen in politics, for instance when the conservative republican Mike Huckabee raised his hand to Hillary Clinton's question of who didn't beleive in evolution. For standing up to his Christian views on the creation of the earth, he was repetively mocked by liberals.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Persecution of Christians]]
[[Category:Church and State]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2009-05-16T22:06:59Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Insurgency */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "Coalition of the Willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] are among the strongest proponents of Operation Iraq Freedom, and support continuing it until a sustained democracy is in place that can repel terrorism on its own.

==Background To Regime Change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[jihad]]ists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found the following:
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD) programs which were credited with ensuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>
[[Image:Dynamicduo.JPG|right|thumb|300px|Sen. Hillary Clinton was a leading spokesperson in the bipartisan decision to commit troops to Iraq.]]
Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,
{{Cquote|'''There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children.''' <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

Egyptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> For 12 years, the international community gave Saddam chance after chance, Saddam defied it all including WMD declarations. Dozens of [[UN]] resolutions and mandated sanctions failed to persuade Saddam's grip on power. In 1998, the course for present day Iraq began in earnest. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. This act declares that it should be the policy of the [[United States]] to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

==Arguments For Regime Change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation From Ba'athist Tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The [[proliferation]] of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> From 2004 to before the surge, the unceasing violence by the insurgents had caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref> [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
Since the surge, this has ceased as 60-80% of the violence has been stopped. On Sat Feb 16, 2008 reuters reported, "Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad. The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June on the back of security clampdowns and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops." <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 showed that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis preferred the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security situation and a lack of public services. It also revealed that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis did not believe they were embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still wanted to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis did not believe there was a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent did not believe they were in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

On January 21, 2008 there was a report about a cache of documents discovered in the fall of 2007 by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar. It gave the individual records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007 saying, "Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed. Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609.html </ref> This certainly justifies these poll results where Iraqis stated that many of the attacks against the Iraqi populace are the work of foreign forces rather than out of the Iraqi population (civil war).

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims, however many iraqis are happy and grateful to the United States of America for freeing them from Saddam's evil dictatorship regime. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

At first, a majority of Iraqis believed these religious leaders. The alternative was difficult for them to believe--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments were the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accused the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation was offered, because no obligation was felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

One key to the success which has now spread all across Iraq and caused a drop in violence in Iraq by 60-80% <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref> is the willingness of the Sunnis to take back their country from the insurgent violence. In an article February 10, 2008 called, "U.S. Military Says Seized Docs Show Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Weakened" it states, "A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups."

The reason for this shift, "the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, "We lost cities and afterward, villages... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying. The memo — believed to have been written in summer 2007 — cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said."

The populace of Iraq has rejected the extremist viewpoint and are now willing to stand up and do what it takes to get peace in the country for themselves and their future. The article further states, "The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq, Smith said. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said. The new organizations, called awakening councils or neighborhood watch groups, were key to helping push Al Qaeda in Iraq out of Anbar province, once one of the country's most violent. The terror network's top leaders are now based somewhere in northern Iraq, Smith said, having moved out of Anbar and into Diyala province last year.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html </ref>

The indomitable spirit of the Iraqis has been put to the test and is prevailing against their enemies as they stand up for their country and reject the extremist view and their brutal ways (including torture) which are documented in the next section.

Most U.S. media companies have a significant stake in shaping the view of this conflict with the American public. Propaganda by U.S. media companies reported a common theme; advocating American failure and defeat in Iraq. As the conflict raged, the American public was given large doses of negative reporting for four years. During 2007, General Petraeus got approval and implemented the 'Surge' strategy for securing Bagdad. Result, deaths and bombings by militias, rogue bandits and terror cells have significantly decreased. Success was rarely reported including the 'Surge' progress. No longer the chance of a failed state along with an extraordinary decrease in violence, U.S. media reportings on Iraq are now virtually non-existent.

===Al-Qaeda's Use Of Torture===

Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency as they now have in Iraq, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. This is why the insurgents have fled to northern Iraq, as stated above. However, working toward forcing cooperation by the populace, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which was the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace has been impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy waned. As a result - before the success of the surge, the drop in violence and the standing up of the Iraqis against this intimidation - US support for the war dropped significantly and many discouraged American people turned to supporting the anti-American sentiments of the far left saying America should pull the troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck stated that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

John McCain, on Feb 15, 2008 delineated his position for the continuance of the war effort stated in this article, "Republican frontrunner John McCain drew sharp distinctions with his Democratic White House rivals over Iraq, saying an untimely US withdrawal would bring about "genocide." "Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday. "That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."<ref> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain:_Early_Pullout_Fro/2008/02/15/72973.html
</ref>

==The Surge And Progress In Iraq==



Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

March 2008 - 62% of Iraqis now say they want the US troops to stay in their country.. and a full 55% say their lives are going well. 

Marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, ABC's anchor Charles Gibson on World News Monday March 18, 2008 explained “we have polled inside Iraq and there is some good news.” Specifically, “today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent.” From Iraq, Terry McCarthy reported, "As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside.... McCarthy also noted in a telling reality check, only 38 percent want U.S. troops to leave now, afraid that the gains in security might be reversed.” This obviously means that 62 percent of the Iraqis polled want US troops to stay in their country until they are certain the gains in security and stability will not be reversed. “Even Fallujah has turned around,” McCarthy learned, “as the local population has largely abandoned the insurgency and now they're focusing on rebuilding the city from the ruins of war,” though tough tasks remain with most complaining about electrical shortages and poor health care services. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/18/abc-finds-optimistic-iraqis-kids-playing-safely-street </ref>

==Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks==

The surge has resulted in a 60% reduction in terrorist attacks and causalities since June of 2007 to the present.<ref>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48515</ref> Indeed, the year 2008 saw a decline in soldier deaths to 309 from 906 the year before.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/iraq.main/index.html</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==

As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. But recently in July 2008, <ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609 The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq]</ref> The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium and parts to make nuclear weapons in Tuwaitha 12 miles south of Baghdad, as proof that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the CIA were right about Saddam owning yellow cake uranium.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the coordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

The UK government Feb 18, 2008 released an early draft of its controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, after losing a bid to keep it secret. The government has always maintained Williams' paper was not relevant as the final dossier was the work of its intelligence agencies. The dossier, quote: "concentrates on allegations that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium, retained the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and was developing long-range missiles." Even the UK's opposition Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey conceded that, "The core analysis of the threat allegedly posed by Iraq is the same in both documents." <ref> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080218/world/britain_iraq_war_dossier_politics_intelligence_1 </ref>

These allegations are not in dispute, as the quoted detractors in the article make clear when it says of them, "Campaigners have been pushing for it to be made public, claiming it could show that the final dossier -- in which it was claimed Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes -- was the work of government "spin doctors"."

Apart from whether Iraq could have launched WMD in that time frame, the core analysis shows ample reason and justification for beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom - including weapons grade uranium, the ability to launch long-range missiles at Western allies and the ability to manufacture at will chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a WMD threat with malicious intent and although how close to launching such attacks he was remains in question, the fact he was one year from aquiring the bomb and was calling for attacks and agents to be in place (in the West) while developing missiles to deliver these weapons against allied Western targets, figured strongly in the case for war.

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen [[Egyptian Islamic Jihad|Egyptian Islamic jihad]] which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Foxnews reported March 23, 2008 that "Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack", stating that "Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London, England to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000." Based on seized documents, Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — were given orders "to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported."

Further, "While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported." <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340745,00.html </ref>
The Ba'athist party was a terror organization. Seeking additional support for terror in the region, Saddam was paying Palestine families $25,000 in U.S. dollars, if their sons blew themselves up in Israel<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html , Sydney Morning Herald Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash, March 26,2002</ref>

===Summary update on WMD and Iraq/terrorist/Al Qaeda connections NOT being falsified===

The Los Angeles Times article, "Bush never lied to us about Iraq - The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception." By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008, a great deal of summary about these two previous sections on WMD and links to the Al Qaeda are given. The article states that, "Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of the charge.. that the Bush administration deceived the American people. Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." 

Even concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, 2008, quote, "what did this report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

The article contends that if Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA. It then asserts, "This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt also brought out what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their June 5, 2008 report, saying, quote:
<ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html </ref>

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." 

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt then noted what the Republican part of the report said, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence." 

<ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/09/bush-lied-argument-doesnt-match-facts-democrats-say </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime Intent===

The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded chemical weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorus precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> A 2008 study estimated that the Iraq War cost the United States $12 billion a month.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs;_ylt=ApGg20eC4zcjyEaIxwc8CC6s0NUE Studies: Iraq costs US $12 billion per month]</ref> This makes the Iraq war the most expensive endeavor in U.S. history.

==Casualties==
[[Image:Iraq War Memorial Lafayette CA.JPEG|thumb|Iraq War Memorial Lafayette CA.]]
Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

===Coalition Troops===

According to the US Department of Defense, over 4,200 U.S. and 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 30,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref> Despite a dramatic decrease in violence in the latter half of the year, 2007 was the worst year in Iraq in terms of U.S. casualties. Over 900 American troops died or went [[missing in action]] during the year.<ref>[www.icasualties.org Iraq War casualties]</ref>

===Enemy Casualties===

in March, 2007, Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

===Civilian Casualties===

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref> A 2008 estimate by the [[World Health Organization]] placed the civilian death toll at 151,000.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc 151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion: WHO]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War Taken From This Entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq?" The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The [[red herring]] <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category: United States of America]]

Fox News Channel

2009-05-16T21:51:28Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Ratings Dominance */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced," carries bipartisan shows like [[Hannity and Colmes]], and daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.Fox News is perhaps the only mainstream news station that hasn't succombed to the obvious Liberal Bias that can be plainly viewed in such things controlled by the liberal media as PBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, WIKIPEDIA, The Daily Show, The BBC, The Colbert Report, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune ect.

Fox News has dominated the [[ratings]] of other cable news outlets, this is largely due to Fox News having fair and unbiased view points almost always which is why it is viewed by people who dont want news with liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media [[tycoon]] Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''[[Outfoxed]]'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with [[price-gouging]] and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. [[Greta Van Susteren]]'s politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentaros, such as host [[Alan Colmes]], news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. This is largely due to his tireless work on making sure The Factor is completely fair and unbiased.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with [[Greta Van Susteren]] is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the [[Rev. Franklin Graham]], [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on [[Pat Ireland]] and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a [[Pew Foundation]] study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist [[Brian Anderson]]. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' [[oil-for-food]] initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|300px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business News]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his on opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Fox News Channel

2009-05-16T21:49:04Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Founding */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced," carries bipartisan shows like [[Hannity and Colmes]], and daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.Fox News is perhaps the only mainstream news station that hasn't succombed to the obvious Liberal Bias that can be plainly viewed in such things controlled by the liberal media as PBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, WIKIPEDIA, The Daily Show, The BBC, The Colbert Report, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune ect.

Fox News has dominated the [[ratings]] of other cable news outlets, this is largely due to Fox News having fair and unbiased view points almost always which is why it is viewed by people who dont want news with liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media [[tycoon]] Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''[[Outfoxed]]'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with [[price-gouging]] and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. [[Greta Van Susteren]]'s politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentaros, such as host [[Alan Colmes]], news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with [[Greta Van Susteren]] is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the [[Rev. Franklin Graham]], [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on [[Pat Ireland]] and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a [[Pew Foundation]] study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist [[Brian Anderson]]. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' [[oil-for-food]] initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|300px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business News]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his on opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Fox News Channel

2009-05-16T21:47:47Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Founding */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced," carries bipartisan shows like [[Hannity and Colmes]], and daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.Fox News is perhaps the only mainstream news station that hasn't succombed to the obvious Liberal Bias that can be plainly viewed in such things controlled by the liberal media as PBS,CNN,MSNBC,WIKIPEDIA,The Daily Show,The BBC,The Colbert Report,The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune ect.

Fox News has dominated the [[ratings]] of other cable news outlets, this is largely due to Fox News having fair and unbiased view points almost always which is why it is viewed by people who dont want news with liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media [[tycoon]] Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''[[Outfoxed]]'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with [[price-gouging]] and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. [[Greta Van Susteren]]'s politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentaros, such as host [[Alan Colmes]], news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with [[Greta Van Susteren]] is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the [[Rev. Franklin Graham]], [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on [[Pat Ireland]] and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a [[Pew Foundation]] study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist [[Brian Anderson]]. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' [[oil-for-food]] initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|300px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business News]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his on opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Fox News Channel

2009-05-16T21:45:22Z

Cheneypalin12: /* Founding */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced," carries bipartisan shows like [[Hannity and Colmes]], and daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.Fox News is perhaps the only mainstream news station that hasn't succombed to the obvious Liberal Bias that can be plainly viewed in such things controlled by the liberal media as PBS,CNN,MSNBC,WIKIPEDIA,The Daily Show,The BBC,The Colbert Report,The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune ect.

Fox News has dominated the [[ratings]] of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media [[tycoon]] Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''[[Outfoxed]]'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with [[price-gouging]] and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. [[Greta Van Susteren]]'s politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentaros, such as host [[Alan Colmes]], news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with [[Greta Van Susteren]] is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the [[Rev. Franklin Graham]], [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on [[Pat Ireland]] and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a [[Pew Foundation]] study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist [[Brian Anderson]]. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' [[oil-for-food]] initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|300px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business News]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his on opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]