Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:ChristianHero

2007-04-04T04:41:22Z

ChristianHero: /* Please see Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints */

If you don't provide some citation links for the claim that Saddam had no connection to Al Qaeda, it will get reverted very fast. (It probabyl will, anyway, for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct".)

(Me:) Okay, I got rid of it. I can't remember where the source was.

Welcome, I like your contributions.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please see [[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] ==

If the Mormon Church said this in the 1970s, I'd really like to be sure you have the exact words, where they said it, and confirmation that it was said by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not one of the splinter groups. Continue discussion at [[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I responded. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 0:40, 4 April 2007

Capital punishment

2007-04-04T04:39:41Z

ChristianHero: /* Biblical View */

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes.

== Capital Punishment in the world today ==
This method of punishment is banned in all developed countries with the exception of the [[United States]], and [[Japan]]. It is also practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on the [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many other countries which are not yet considered to be developed.<ref>EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by older, white, Republican males.<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

== Biblical View ==
The Old Testament of the Bible has several passages the recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

It would appear, however, that this was repudiated by Jesus: "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"<ref>John 8:7</ref> is cited as evidence that humans do not have the right to judge another worthy of death. In addition, many Christians find the death penalty repugnant since their Savior was put to death under draconian Roman death penalty laws.

== Capital punishment in the United States ==
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis, and several states' laws do not allow for executions.
The practice appears to be on the wane, as appeals and stays of execution create a backlog on death row. Pennsylvania has hundreds of people on death row, and only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws. One man has been on death row in Texas for 31 years. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>

== Methods in the United States ==

Lethal injection is the official method of capital punishment in almost all states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Nebraska is the only state of these that does not have lethal injection. Electrocution is the official method of execution there. Several botched electrocutions in Florida in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the electric chair, which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in Utah, most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in Washington and Delaware, most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The gas chamber, which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in California, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-04-04T04:37:31Z

ChristianHero: /* "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " */

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2007-04-02T02:57:57Z

ChristianHero: /* '''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things''' */

{{debate}}

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the ''philosophy'' of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government ''type'' which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about ''unless'' it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy." --[[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]]

I disagree. In small communities the "Democracy" that tugs at people is possible because the group is small and everyone's say can be heard. As communities grow large, this has generally become impossible. The founders of the US of A (as I understand it), based America's government on the Greek forum, where everyone was heard by the attending community. Whether fortunate or unfortunate, when a group grows large is becomes efficient for sections of the large group to elect or appoint a spokesperson to represent the section in the public forum. In the US of A, this sectionizing is done mainly by geography. Each state (a stand alone member of the US of A) is represented by 2 Senators. And in the other House of Congress, representation is done by population, again with a geographical distribution (mostly). Can these, or some part of these, ideas work anywhere? Well, yes BUT the underlying assumptions need to be agreed to by those who engage in the forum. The idea that everyone should have an equal say is not present in Iraq. In fact, it is strongly objected to by persons who wield weapons to make themselves heard and to quell other voices. The second assumption that worked in the US of A was elected representation. This assumption is also against Iraq traditions. There, the interests of a group have traditionally been a matter of blood or other means of selection rather than by vote. A brief answer to "Is democracy possible in Iraq" could be stated, "yes, but it will need many indidivudals to tolerate new ideas traditionally unsupported." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on [[Turkey]].

==='''Yes ...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked, not being interested in where your daughter, sister or mom is sleeping tonight, being able to deny the presence of God, drinking alcohol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets, not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking your children out of your houses when they become 18, not knowing your neighbors after living thirty years door to door with them, having disposable marriages, watching two men kissing each other on the street ''and'' yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is ''no''.

But if democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits (by not doing all of above and some others), being able to question the ruling authority, women's right of voting, equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others' lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is ''yes''.

And if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first fifty years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

-I think that there are already democracies in The Middle East, but I think some people question that because they see a democracy more as upholding American values, but the Arabs don't seem to want that

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic (in that we "vote", but that's it -- more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely on a series of events. As well, there are forms of democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran which does in fact hold elections (yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist (under the correct circumstance -- which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now -- because of a lack of acknowledgment to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.
: Rather than represent our own interests, we elect a person who, we hope, will represent our interests for us. Such people are (generally) experienced in the area. Iran would be a democracy except that it has a sort of monarchy of religious overseers who (apparently) can override any portion of the democractic process. For example the religious overseers decared a number of candiates who were going to be voted on by the populace as "unqualified". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''No ...'''===

Democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
Democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. The man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
The forefathers knew about a democracy. That is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you ... to an extent. After a while, democracy alone begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elected legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy (no tyrants, self government ...) without some of the problems (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. That said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning—the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master-minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it) ...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==='''You can install a muffler or battery but not a Democracy'''===
'''Comment'''
:Democracy is one of those words that is mostly misused and misunderstood .
Lets look at the definition:
“Demos: mean common people
“kratos”: means rule
so democracy means “ruled by people”
There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,
As a matter of fact though most Islamic countries are fascist they are better examples of pure democracies than the U.S..

Now let me try to explain that. If the vast majority of a population desire their government to impose sharia law and they believe that infidels should be killed or converted there is nothing undemocratic about that, though the infidel might disagree.

The U.S. is not a democracy.
It is a hybrid “constitutional representative federal republic”
This is far from a pure democracy. The U.S. is governed by a constitution of laws not of people.
Early in the history of the U.S. it’s founders agreed on a set of rules that would limit not only the power and discretion of the government ( it’s self and it’s law) but also it’s people and it’s subsequent elected leaders. Why did they do this? Well they knew that absolute power is corrupting and oppressive in any one entities hands. So, they basically spread it out .
Constitutional ( we are ruled by law )
Federation (we are made up of smaller sovereign countries or “states” )
Republic ( we are ruled by consent )
Representative ( we vote for our leaders )

: Good gosh. We govern ourselves because we create the laws we live under and we remove the laws we don't like. The Constitituion is a framework (and again, we could and have modified it) the laws fit within. We are not the effect of what has gone before, but use it as a guideline toward changes that will be to our benefit. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Yes, Indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest Muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly Islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''No ...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

==='''No ...'''===

You Said That "We came to our democratic system through our own will and process." However that is not true, Thomas Jefferson once said "I would not want any man to judge me, unless he believed that someday god would judge him" The founding of this nation was based on christain principles. Our "democracy" was a system spoken of in the book of jeremiah: "The lord is our lawgiver, the lord is our judge and the lord is our king" The reason why democracy is not working in Iraq is because they are trying to create a government under muslim principles, contrary to the very foundation upon wich america was formed, the word of god. Freedom only works if you have responsibility. the only way that "democracy" will work, in any country is if the people in that country turn their hearts to god, the creator.

==='''Not for long ...'''===
Oh, a representative government can be set up easily enough. The problem is that in a democracy, people will vote for who they want to rule them. And in a highly devout Muslim, what the people want to rule them is a group of very religious muslims who are completly and openly dedicated to upholding the princibles of the Koran. That is, oppressive theocrats who want woman to be covered and banned from education, think infidels should be killed on sight and have the long-term objective of taking over the world with an Islamic Superstate. Oh, its a democracy all right - its a government that carries out the will of the people. And if they people (Or at least the men, as women would either be forbidden from voting or prevented by intimidation and violence) ''want'' to live under the type of government that considers the Koran to be the unalterable defining document of law... well, thats exactly what they will vote in. - BornAgainBrit

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-04-02T02:52:43Z

ChristianHero: /* "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " */

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-03-19T01:35:29Z

ChristianHero: /* Mormons' relationship to Christianity */

The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormons''', was founded by [[Joseph Smith]] in 1830, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni. The church migrated from New York to Kirtland Ohio, until they were forced out by mobs, but the they than moved to Illinois. The church also sent large groups of Saints to Missouri, while they were in kirtland, but were forced out of the state by the State Government, they joined the Saints in Illinois. They were there for a few years, but were forced out by mobs. They than moved to Utah where they have many members there and worldwide. The Mormons perform enormous amounts of missionary activity. Today, there are more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

In 1847, Mormons, led by [[Brigham Young]], traveled west to escape persecution and founded [[Salt Lake City, Utah]]. Salt Lake City is famous for its wide streets, which were made wide enough to allow a wagon team to turn around. Salt Lake City is home to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which has been recording since 1910 and broadcasting since 1929. Its recordings usually feature hymns and patriotic music. The Choir has made five gold and two platinum recordings.

Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1301-1,00.html The Word of Wisdom] Mormon.org</ref>

[[Category: Religion]]

==Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
Mormons are somewhat out of the mainstream of U. S. Christian denominations, because they accept the [[Book of Mormon]] as well as the [[King James Bible]]. The Book of Mormon includes an account of the ancient people in the Americas. It also states that Jesus Christ came to them after the 40 days he spent with the Apotles in Isreal. According to LDS history, The Book of Mormon was translated by divine revelations made to [[Joseph Smith]]. The Mormons believe that The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ

Nevertheless, modern Mormons consider themselves to be Christians -- though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.

The LDS website says "We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref>

==Polygamy==
Early prejudice against Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the popular mind.

A 1998 statement by LDS Present Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
===Non-Mormon===
*[http://www.mormonwiki.org MormonWiki]
*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
===Mormon===
*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]

[[Category:Religion]]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-03-19T01:19:37Z

ChristianHero: /* Mormons' relationship to Christianity */

The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormons''', was founded by [[Joseph Smith]] in 1830, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni. The church migrated from New York to Kirtland Ohio, until they were forced out by mobs, but the they than moved to Illinois. The church also sent large groups of Saints to Missouri, while they were in kirtland, but were forced out of the state by the State Government, they joined the Saints in Illinois. They were there for a few years, but were forced out by mobs. They than moved to Utah where they have many members there and worldwide. The Mormons perform enormous amounts of missionary activity. Today, there are more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

In 1847, Mormons, led by [[Brigham Young]], traveled west to escape persecution and founded [[Salt Lake City, Utah]]. Salt Lake City is famous for its wide streets, which were made wide enough to allow a wagon team to turn around. Salt Lake City is home to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which has been recording since 1910 and broadcasting since 1929. Its recordings usually feature hymns and patriotic music. The Choir has made five gold and two platinum recordings.

Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1301-1,00.html The Word of Wisdom] Mormon.org</ref>

[[Category: Religion]]

==Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
Mormons are somewhat out of the mainstream of U. S. Christian denominations, because they accept the [[Book of Mormon]] as well as the [[King James Bible]]. The Book of Mormon includes an account of the ancient people in the Americas. It also states that Jesus Christ came to them after the 40 days he spent with the Apotles in Isreal. According to LDS history, The Book of Mormon was translated by divine revelations made to [[Joseph Smith]]. The Mormons believe that The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ

Nevertheless, modern Mormons consider themselves to be Christians -- though in the 1970s the church was very adamant about the fact that Mormons were NOT Christians.

The LDS website says "We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref>

==Polygamy==
Early prejudice against Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the popular mind.

A 1998 statement by LDS Present Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]

[[Category:Religion]]

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2007-03-19T01:11:49Z

ChristianHero: /* '''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things''' */

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the PHILOSOPHY of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government TYPE which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about UNLESS it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy."

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on Turkey

==='''yes...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked,not being interested in where your daughter sister or mom is sleeping tonight , being able to deny the presence of God, Drinking alcholol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets,not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking out your children out of your houses when they become 18,not knowing your neighbours after living 30 years door to door with them,having disposable marriages , watching two men kissing each other on the street AND yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is NO.

but If democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits,(by not doing all of above and some others) , being able to question the ruling authority , women's right of voting,equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is Yes.

and if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first 50 years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic(In that we "vote", but that's it-more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely and a series of events. As well, there are forms of Democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran does infact hold elections(Yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist(Under the correct circumstance-which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now-because of a lack of acknowedgement to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.

==='''no...'''===
democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. the man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
the forefathers knew about a democracy. that is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you...to an extent. After a while democracy, alone, begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it)...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Yes==
Yes, indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''no...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2007-03-19T01:10:21Z

ChristianHero: /* '''Post Your Thoughts''' */

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the PHILOSOPHY of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government TYPE which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about UNLESS it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy ust be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like our government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy."

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on Turkey

==='''yes...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked,not being interested in where your daughter sister or mom is sleeping tonight , being able to deny the presence of God, Drinking alcholol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets,not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking out your children out of your houses when they become 18,not knowing your neighbours after living 30 years door to door with them,having disposable marriages , watching two men kissing each other on the street AND yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is NO.

but If democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits,(by not doing all of above and some others) , being able to question the ruling authority , women's right of voting,equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is Yes.

and if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first 50 years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic(In that we "vote", but that's it-more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely and a series of events. As well, there are forms of Democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran does infact hold elections(Yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist(Under the correct circumstance-which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now-because of a lack of acknowedgement to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.

==='''no...'''===
democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. the man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
the forefathers knew about a democracy. that is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you...to an extent. After a while democracy, alone, begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it)...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Yes==
Yes, indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''no...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

Gun control

2007-03-19T00:46:02Z

ChristianHero:

'''Gun control''' refers to all laws enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to keep and bear [[firearms]]. This right is a [[natural right]]{{fact}} (similar to the right to Privacy) which we are endowed by our [[God|Creator]] with, and the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]] explicitly recognizes a right to bear arms.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on this right. This can include:
* Restricting which persons can own firearms and denying some persons this right
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government. This has led to gun confiscation in countries where it has been enacted.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, handguns or so-called "assault" rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

Interestingly enough, the Patriot Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the Patriot Act are often opposed to gun control.

Besides the wisdom of natural rights, studies by John Lott and others have proven that gun control isn't practical and doesn't help public safety <ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>. Simply put, crime statistics show that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

After decades of increasing infringement on Second Amendment rights, the current trend is finally in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain rifles labeled "assault" rifles solely because of features of their appearance. This law recenly expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington's gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>

<references/>

Gun control

2007-03-19T00:44:18Z

ChristianHero:

'''Gun control''' refers to all laws enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to keep and bear [[firearms]]. This right is a [[natural right]]{{fact}} which we are endowed by our [[God|Creator]] with, and the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]] explicitly recognizes a right to bear arms.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on this right. This can include:
* Restricting which persons can own firearms and denying some persons this right
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government. This has led to gun confiscation in countries where it has been enacted.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, handguns or so-called "assault" rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

Interestingly enough, the Patriot Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the Patriot Act are often opposed to gun control.

Besides the wisdom of natural rights, studies by John Lott and others have proven that gun control isn't practical and doesn't help public safety <ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>. Simply put, crime statistics show that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

After decades of increasing infringement on Second Amendment rights, the current trend is finally in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain rifles labeled "assault" rifles solely because of features of their appearance. This law recenly expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington's gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>

<references/>

User talk:ChristianHero

2007-03-12T08:57:46Z

ChristianHero:

User talk:ChristianHero

2007-03-12T08:57:26Z

ChristianHero:

User:ChristianHero

2007-03-12T08:56:23Z

ChristianHero:

I am a strong Christian, and hold several Conservative viewpoints, but I am very interested in truth, and despise hypocrisy.

Saddam Hussein

2007-03-12T08:53:48Z

ChristianHero:

Saddam Hussein was the [[Sunni]] president of Iraq.

As is often the case, national alignments can change rapidly. During the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, the United States considered Saddam Hussein to be a friend and assisted him with loans. During the 1990s, however, Saddam was considered one of America's greatest enemies.

Saddam was captured by America, and, after a trial, hanged on December 30, 2006. Interestingly, the name Saddam means "one who confronts".

[[Category:Biographies]]

Taliban

2007-03-12T08:50:07Z

ChristianHero:

The Taliban was a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 when the United States assisted them until 2001, when United States forces invaded Afganistan and overthrew them.

The word "taliban" means "students"

The reason for invasion was that the Taliban had ties to al-Qaida (a militant Sunni Islamist organization), the group that is held responsible for the attacks on America, September 11th, 2001.

The Taliban's rule has been characterized by the fact that women could not be educated, and that the leaders were fanatically intolerant of other religions.

In addition, the Taliban had banned all forms of television, imagery, music and sports, which resulted in Afganistan being suspended from the year 2000 Olympics.

Taliban

2007-03-12T08:49:43Z

ChristianHero:

The Taliban was a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 when the United States assisted them until 2001, when United States forces invaded Afganistan and overthrew them. The world means "students"

The reason for invasion was that the Taliban had ties to al-Qaida (a militant Sunni Islamist organization), the group that is held responsible for the attacks on America, September 11th, 2001.

The Taliban's rule has been characterized by the fact that women could not be educated, and that the leaders were fanatically intolerant of other religions.

In addition, the Taliban had banned all forms of television, imagery, music and sports, which resulted in Afganistan being suspended from the year 2000 Olympics.

Saddam Hussein

2007-03-12T08:48:07Z

ChristianHero:

Patriot Act

2007-03-12T08:42:33Z

ChristianHero:

The '''Patriot Act''' (formally, the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001') was an act passed by the [[Republican]] [[congress]] following the 2001 attacks on World Trade Center. It removed a certain number of liberties from American citizens, including such things as the right of habeas corpus and the requirement for a search warrent, since of course freedom might be used by terrorists against America, and hence freedom is the enemy of security.

Long ago patriots said things like "Give me liberty, or give me death", but today we say "take away my liberties, that's ok, patriotism means security not liberty."

The Patriot Act seems to indicate that safety holds a higher value than liberty, which is a very strong argument in favor of gun control, something that followers of the Patriot Act seem strangely opposed to.

==Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html discussion of Patriot Act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]

[[Category:United States law]]
{{stub}}

Capital punishment

2007-03-12T08:40:11Z

ChristianHero:

"How does killing people who kill people show that killing people is wrong?"

=Jesus' view on Capital Punishment=

"Do not return evil for evil"

"Turn the other cheek"

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

If you love what Jesus loves and hate what he hates, then you love everybody (including murderers) and you hate killing (including killing murderers).

Anti-war quotations

2007-03-12T08:36:31Z

ChristianHero:

"War doesn't prove who is right, only who is left."

=Jesus' view on War=

"Do not return evil for evil"

"Turn the other cheek"

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

If you love what Jesus loves and hate what he hates, then you love everybody (including evil people) and you hate killing (including killing evil people).

Anti-war quotations

2007-03-12T08:33:51Z

ChristianHero: /* Jesus' view on War */

"War doesn't prove who is right, only who is left."

War is pointless violence that begets itself and solves nothing.

=Jesus' view on War=

"Do not return evil for evil"

"Turn the other cheek"

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

If you love what Jesus loves and hate what he hates, then you love everybody (including evil people) and you hate killing (including killing evil people).

Anti-war quotations

2007-03-12T08:33:16Z

ChristianHero:

Anti-war quotations

2007-03-12T08:32:40Z

ChristianHero:

Pointless violence that begets itself and solves nothing.

"War doesn't prove who is right, only who is left."

"Do not return evil for evil"

"Turn the other cheek"

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

If you love what Jesus loves and hate what he hates, then you love everybody (including evil people) and you hate death (including the death of evil people).

Anti-war quotations

2007-03-12T08:32:23Z

ChristianHero:

Pointless violence that begets itself and solves nothing.

"War doesn't prove who is right, only who is left."

"Do not return evil for evil"
"Turn the other cheek"
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

If you love what Jesus loves and hate what he hates, then you love everybody (including evil people) and you hate death (including the death of evil people).

Gun Control

2007-03-12T08:27:01Z

ChristianHero:

'''Gun control''' is the regulation of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s by governments. Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and posseession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. In fact, whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government criminals will commit crimes and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>, compared to only 11,350 in 2005 in the USA.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>

The "right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right guaranteed in the American [[Bill of Rights]] although courts have frequently refused to protect this right from infringement, because they're more worried about safety than protection of rights, which the Patriot Act seems to deem a good thing.

Liberal

2007-03-12T08:20:08Z

ChristianHero:

'''Liberal''' is a term used to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" — at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms.<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

"Liberalism" today means the favoring of collectivism or egalitarianism over individual responsibility. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.

The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Some examples of liberal beliefs include:

* support of gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* increased taxes
* dependence on government programs such as welfare
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government "education" (indoctrination) about human reproduction

Liberals typically align themselves with the [[Democratic Party]] in the United States, and the Liberal Democratic Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://http://www.libdems.org.uk/</ref>

An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

:Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

(Liberals Rule!)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]