Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Fred Phelps

2009-02-05T04:05:44Z

ClydeMorris: There is no mention of him in the article being a liberal so he shouldn't have the category.

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organization not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behavior. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the [[Catholic Church]] and [[Episcopal Church]] and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut"<ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>.

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is being represented by the [[ACLU]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref>

Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for President in 1988.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., also served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref>

Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined [[Bill Clinton]] on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref>
<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref>

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the Internet which preach against [[homosexuality]] and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the [[Bible]] and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Phelps and the politics ==

Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. and 1997. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref> He supported [[Al Gore]] in the 1988 primaries, but turned on him in the 1992 election where he staunchly opposed Gore, [[Bill Clinton|Bill]], and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]].

== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==

In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read, in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Hussein to protest in Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref>

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.

*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.
<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>]]
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax. {{fact}}

==Criticism of Phelps==
Phelps has been criticized by a great number of individuals, both conservative and liberal. For example, [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>

Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said "Fred Phelps' curious message is hardly Christian, and only fuels societal bigotry toward those who espouse genuine Biblical views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion," <ref>http://www.eleventh-avenue-south.com/archives/2005/08/fred_phelps_a_p.html</ref>

Phelps was also cited during Canadian deliberations<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121806.html</ref> about declaring anti-gay sentiments to be a hate crime.

== Recent Activities ==

Phelps has recently announced that he and his group will picket the funeral service of actor [[Heath Ledger]].

== Outside links ==
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church+BBC&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]The Most Hated Family In America
*[http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/03/how_much_do_you.html Oh yeah, and he used to be tight with Al Gore]
*[http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/rev_fred_phelps.htmlRev. Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

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

[[Category:Religious People|Phelps, Fred]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}

The View

2009-02-05T03:55:18Z

ClydeMorris: Considering Hasselbeck campaigned for Palin I'd hardly call her a moderate

The View is a talk show that airs weekdays on [[ABC]]. It was created by [[Barbara Walters]] in [[1997]] and features four to five women panelists discussing the issues of the day from a generally [[liberal]] perspective. The current line-up features [[Whoopi Goldberg]], [[Joy Behar]] and Walters representing the [[left]] with [[Elisabeth Hasselbeck]] and [[Sherri Shepherd]] representing the [[conservative]] side. Previous co-hosts include [[Meredith Viera]], [[Rosie O'Donnell]] and [[Star Jones]].

[[Category: Television Shows]]

Brokeback Mountain

2009-02-05T02:29:22Z

ClydeMorris: Gyllenhaal was a household name for movie goers before this film while Ledger was also well known in his field. Removed editorial comment about 'sensible' actors not touching the film

[[Image:Brokebackmountainposter.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Movie poster for ''Brokeback Mountain'']]
'''Brokeback Mountain''' is a [[movie]] from 2005 by Ang Lee about two male [[cowboy]]s who begin a hormonally-charged relationship during a time of prolonged seclusion from others (particularly from females). Afterwards, they part ways and marry beautiful, dedicated and loving women. However, soon their past comes to haunt them and destroys not only their lives but the innocent lives of their wives and children. Audiences witness the families torn asunder in waves of agonizing revelations, as the men continue to meet periodically, telling their wives they are going fishing.

Despite the destructive message of this film, liberally minded institutions with [[Hollywood values]] rewarded the [[homosexual agenda]] by festooning the movie with several awards including three [[Oscar]]s, four [[BAFTA]] awards, and four [[Golden Globe]]s. As [[Bill O'Reilly]] remarked in a monologue:
<blockquote>
I also think the entertainment industry should be up front in explaining what films it values and why it finds them especially worthy. Most Americans are not gonna see "Brokeback Mountain" because they don't relate to the subject, and if Hollywood is now in the "culture-shaping business," it should admit it. So look for Oscar night to be a huge night for shepherds who roam the range in their own consensual way. Hollywood is making a statement and Americans should be geting the message loud and clear.<ref name=OReilly>[http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.movies.current-films/2006-02/msg01298.html Transcript of Bill O'Reilly's monologue]</ref>
</blockquote>
The Times reported:
<blockquote>
Christian groups led a furious campaign against Hollywood yesterday, accusing the Golden Globe Awards of promoting films with gay or “leftist” themes to serve a political agenda. The criticism was made after Brokeback Mountain, a film about the forbidden love between gay Wyoming cowboys, won four awards...
Oscar pundits are now questioning whether the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will also reward Brokeback Mountain, potentially souring Hollywood’s relationship with the American ticketbuying public even further...
Right-wing radio talk show hosts also took pot shots at the Globes yesterday. Stephen Bennett, of Straight Talk Radio, said: “When Hollywood is pumping out anti-family movies with sexually explicit, twisted and perverse themes that glorify homosexuality, transsexuality and every other kind of sexual immorality — then awarding itself for doing so — Middle America better take note. “Last night Hollywood exposed its own corrupt agenda. [It] is no doubt out on a mission to homosexualise America.”<ref>http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article789527.ece</ref>
</blockquote>
Many other sources have also been outraged how Hollywood supported the gay agenda with the overpromotion of this film<ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/060113d.asp CBN</ref><ref>http://www.jamesbowman.net/articleDetail.asp?pubID=1703 James Bowman</ref>.

''Brokeback Mountain'' became the "buzz" that everyone was talking about in 2005 and people were admonished{{fact}} for not having seen it and not being "open-minded" to a "different" love story. In that respect, the [[advertising]] concealed the theme of [[homosexuality]] from the public, merely referring to it as a modern day "love story" and concentrating on the appealing rugged cowboy element and picturesque landscapes.

[[Heath Ledger]] and [[Jake Gyllenhaal]] took on the main roles of the two cowboys. An interview with the San Francisco Bay Times noted, <blockquote>Though the director admits making Brokeback Mountain presents a certain professional risk for all involved, he does not find the act particularly “brave” of his stars. “They’re actors,” he notes. “Of course they want juicy parts.” “I’m not their [Ledger and Gyllenhall's] manager. I don’t care if this movie dooms the rest of their careers,” he half-jokes. “All I cared about was that they performed for me.”

<ref>San Francisco Bay Times, ''Going for Broke: Oscar-Winner Ang Lee Directs “A Movie That Had to Be Made”'', by Paul E. Pratt, published: December 1, 2005 [http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=4364 SF Chronicle]</ref></blockquote>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Drama]][[Category:Homosexuality]]

Eric Robert Rudolph

2009-02-05T02:22:49Z

ClydeMorris: Added another category

'''Eric Rudolph''' is an American terrorist. Inspired by his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual beliefs, he committed four bombings, killing three. He is currently incarcerated.

==Attacks==

Rudolph's most famous attack was a bombing at the [[Atlanta Olympics]], which killed Alice Hawthorne and injured her daughter and 110 other spectators. The attack was originally blamed on the hero security guard who found the bag, [[Richard Jewell]], in a horrible case of [[trial by media]]. When it was recognized Rudolph was behind the attack, he was placed on the [[FBI]]'s [[most wanted list]]. He also bombed two abortion clinics, killing two (including an off duty policeman hiring himself out as a security guard), and a gay and lesbian night club, injuring 5.

==Arrest==

After 5 years on the run Rudolph was captured in North Carolina living in squalid conditions. A police officer found him looking through a garbage dumpster for food. He was sentenced to two life sentences for his crimes, and two more life sentences in a subsequent trial, and is currently locked up in supermax. He still sends anti-abortion and anti-homosexual messages to the [[Army of god|Army of God]], a militant anti-abortion group, which publishes them on its website.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rudolph,Eric}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Eric Robert Rudolph

2009-02-05T02:21:58Z

ClydeMorris:

Timothy McVeigh

2009-02-05T01:34:50Z

ClydeMorris: Added category

[[Image:Mcveighmugshot.jpg|right|145px|thumb]]
'''Timothy McVeigh''' was the main perpetrator in the [[Oklahoma City Bombing]] on April 19, 1995, which killed 168 people in the worst act of domestic terrorism in American history. He was pulled over that afternoon by Lieutenant Charles Hanger for driving without a license plate, and arrested after Lt. Hanger found an unregistered firearm in his car. <ref>http://www.nleomf.com/TheFund/programs/OOM/hanger_oct01.htm</ref>
McVeigh was a veteran of [[Operation Desert Storm]].

==Motivations==
McVeigh intended to avenge the deaths among the [[Branch Davidians]] at [[Waco]], [[Texas]], a third of which were members of minority groups, including 30 blacks, as well as 6 Hispanics and 7 Asians and including a number of interracial marriages. <ref>David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman, ''No More Wacos: What’s Wrong With Federal Law Enforcement and How To Fix It'', Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997, 409-411.</ref> McVeigh's accomplice, [[Terry Nichols]] was himself married to a Philippine national despite widespread allegations spread through the mainstream media of racial motivations behind the bombings. McVeigh was [[politically profiled]] in Brandon Stickney's ''All-American Monster - The Unauthorized Biography of Timothy McVeigh''. In an interview with Lawrence W. Myers in ''Media Bypass'' magazine:
{{Cquote|McVeigh said he considers unfair and unfounded the notion that the mainstream press has classified him as a racist simply because he had read ''The Turner Diaries''. He said he responded to a gun magazine advertisement for the book around 1988 because it was being billed as a novel about what may happen when the government comes to confiscate privately owned firearms.

McVeigh also pointed out, and his sergeant confirms, that while in the Army he served alongside black soldiers without incident or problem, and when he lived off base, he and Michael Fortier routinely gave rides to work to two fellow soldiers who were black.

Although there were no African-Americans in McVeigh’s graduating class, and few in his hometown, according to the U. S. Army there are no reported incidents of him having any professional problems as a soldier dealing with other races.

Furthermore, McVeigh’s platoon sergeant was black and his platoon leader was black, and both gave him the highest ratings an infantry soldier can attain. <ref>Lawrence W. Myers, ''Tim McVeigh: An Interview'', Media Bypass, February 1996, pg. 36.</ref>}}

==Leftist conspiracy theories==
Following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing [[Leonard Zeskind]] teamed with James Ridgeway, who
writes about right-wing politics for various liberal and leftist serials, and they produced a
conspiracy theory of their very own.
{{Cquote|There is every reason to believe that the attack was a call for revolution by the far [[rightist|right wing]] of this country, organized through the widespread militia movement and carried out by one of the leaderless terror cells created by that movement.

It is probable that the three men being held in connection with the bombing—Timothy McVeigh, James Nichols and his brother Terry Nichols—are all members of that same militia cell. <ref>James Ridgeway and Leonard Zeskind, ''Revolution U.S.A.,'' Village Voice, 2 May 1995.</ref>}}

None of this proved true, and one of the most intensive investigations in FBI history has failed to link these three to any militia organization in any significant way whatsoever. In addition, James Nichols was not even a defendant in the case. The article also refers to the Posse Comitatus, a radical tax protest group of mythical proportions, as a precursor to the militias.

In 1996 Zeskind was also a contributor along with [[Chip Berlet]] and others to ''Conspiracies: Real Grievances, Paranoia, and Mass Movements'', edited by Eric Ward and published by PeanutButter Publishing. The general thrust of their contributions was to attack conspiracy theories of the right while ignoring those of the left. <ref>Eric Ward, editor, ''Conspiracies: Real Grievances, Paranoia, and Mass Movements'', (Washington: Peanut Butter Press, 1997) See also: James A. Jones, ''Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment''. (NY: The Free Press, 1981).</ref>

== Other theories ==
McVeigh's first lead defense counsel Stephen Jones coauthored a book titled ''Others Unknown: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing Conspiracy'' in which he suggests that McVeigh's co-conspirator Terry Nichols had connections to Islamic [[terrorists]] in the Philippines, among other possibilities.

Some have suggested that [[Jose Padilla]] bears a resemblance to John Doe #2, who was initially identified as a suspect in the bombing. [http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06132002.shtml]

==Execution==
McVeigh was executed by the federal government on June 11, 2001.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: McVeigh, Timothy}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Ted Haggard

2009-02-05T01:19:59Z

ClydeMorris: Added category

'''Ted Haggard''' is a former [[Pastor]] of the [[New Life Church]] in [[Colorado Springs]], [[Colorado]] and a founder of the [[Association of Life-Giving Churches]]. He was leader of the [[National Association of Evangelicals]] from 2003 until November 2006 when he stepped down after a scandal.

In November 2006, he was removed or resigned from his leadership positions after allegations of [[homosexual]] sex and drug abuse were made by Mike Jones, a male [[prostitute]]. Originally, Haggard denied knowing Mike Jones, but later acknowledged that was not the case. He also admitted that some accusations, such as his purchasing [[methamphetamine]], were true. He confessed to "[[sexual immorality]]" in the following days, but still maintained that aspects of Mike Jones' testimony were untrue.

:"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2630268] Ousted Evangelist Confesses to Followers</ref>

The man who accused him was quoted as saying afterwards<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227159,00.html] Evangelical Leader Admits to Buying Meth, Receiving Massage From Gay Escort</ref> "It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex,". (It should be noted that Haggard supported homosexual civil unions, but not marriage <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/04/groups_gay_marriage_issue_not_congresss] Gay marriage issue not Congress's</ref> and had earlier gone on record supporting the court decision in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' believing that government should not interfere in the private lives of homosexuals. <ref>''Christianity Today'' magazine, Nov. 2005, Pg. 45</ref>)

==Rehabilitation==

On February 6, 2007, Tim Ralph, one of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for Haggard, stated that Haggard "is completely [[heterosexual]]." Ralph later explained himself further saying that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side."

In February of 2008, Haggard requested that his oversight and counseling by the New Life Church recovery program be ended.<ref>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/07/haggard-ends-teams-oversight-of-restoration/</ref> The representatives of New Life Church agreed to his request, but Pastor Brady Boyd issued a statement<ref>http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3422</ref> saying they believe that the termination of the relationship is premature without elaborating. Earlier in the process, church leaders had said they assumed that Haggard's recovery could take several years, and in the 2008 statement, they remained convinced that he should not return to any church ministry.

==References==
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227159,00.html
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Haggard, Ted}}

[[Category:Ministers]]
[[Category:Homosexuals]]

The Simpsons

2009-02-05T01:14:54Z

ClydeMorris: /* Lisa Simpson */

'''''The Simpsons''''' is a satirical animated comedy series created by ''Life in Hell'' cartoonist [[Matt Groening]]. ''The Simpsons'' started on the ''[[The Tracey Ullman Show]]'' in 1987. In December 1989 the show debuted on the [[Fox Network]]. The show was also made into a feature-length movie, which was released on 27 July 2007.

''The Simpsons'' is the longest-running sitcom in the [[United States]], as well as the longest-running animated television series, and is viewed all over the world. It has won 23 Emmy Awards, and will begin its 20th season in fall of 2008.

==Family==
The show revolves around the fictional Simpsons family.

===Homer Jay Simpson===
The overweight, balding father of the family. Homer "works" as a safety inspector in the local nuclear power plant - where he usually sleeps, which gets him into trouble with his boss, Mr. Burns. However, many episodes ahve shown him performing a wide range of other jobs. Homer enjoys a diet mostly centered around donuts and "Duff" beer. Homer is by choice quite lazy but does get pushed into occasionally performing heroic acts for his family.

===Marge Simpson===
Marjorie "Marge" Bouvier Simpson is the mother of the family. Instantly recognizable thanks to her unfeasibly large blue beehive hairdo, Marge provides the foundation for the family. Her relationship with Homer is portrayed as a loving one but frequently exasperating due mostly to Homer's buffoonery. Marge is in many respects the prototypical suburban American mother, as she stays at home and takes care of the family while Homer works. On a few occasions Marge has gotten a job which was met with horrible results.

===Bartholomew "Bart" Simpson===
Their son Bart, the eldest child, is a troublemaker and self-proclaimed underachiever. Bart has a mixed relationship with his father. While sometimes harboring a very close relationship with his father, Bart's opinion of Homer is all over the radar, ranging from very affectionate love to deep frustration.

===Lisa Simpson===
The older daughter. Lisa is mostly concerned with being a good student, protecting the environment (she is involved with other [[liberal]] causes at different points in the show's history), and playing the [[saxophone]].

===Maggie Simpson===
A baby who does not talk.

==Themes==
While The Simpsons has many [[liberal]] themes the basis and morals of the show often portray family centered values in a warped sort of way and many episodes have a strong [[church]] focus. The show also has many episodes which focus on politics. The writers of the show come from both liberal and conservative backgrounds, and this is reflected through the portrayal of American politics on the show. The Springfield [[Republican Party]] is headed by the villainous Mr. Burns and meets in an old castle. Twice they have put forwards candidates for elections: Burns himself ran for governor of the anonymous state Springfield is in, though he eventually lost; while in a later episode Sideshow Bob, though twice convicted for attempted murder, becomes Mayor of Springfield. He is removed from office when it is discovered that he personally and secretly committed large scale voting fraud. Meanwhile, the Springfield Democratic party is led by Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby, who is portrayed as a promiscuous, unfaithful and corrupt politician, once admitting openly that he murdered his opponents. Quimby and his family are clearly modeled on the Kennedy family.

==External Links==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/ IMDB Website]

[[category:Television Shows]]

XXIX Olympiad

2009-02-05T00:48:00Z

ClydeMorris: Changed tense as they have already taken place

The Games of the''' XXIX [[Olympics|Olympiad]]''' (2008), were awarded to [[Beijing]], [[China]] after a two-round vote of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on July 13, 2001, in Moscow.

The Opening ceremony was held on August 8 and the Closing ceremony on August 24

[http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1056.pdf Programme of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008]

== Emblem ==
[[Image:Img214070839.jpg|right]]
The "Dancing Beijing" emblem, depicting a Chinese seal inscribed with the character "Jing" (jīng (京), from the name of the Host City) in the form of a dancing figure.

 
== Mascot ==
[[Image:Friendlies Yingying.jpg|right|180px]]
The mascots of Beijing 2008 are the five Fuwa. (formerly Friendlies, Chinese: 福娃; Pinyin: Fúwá; literally "Good-luck dolls") Their names are: ''Beibei, Jingjing, Huanhuan, Yingying,'' and ''Nini''. Each of the five names is designed to look like a plausible name for a small child, but when put together, they sound nearly identical to the phrase "北京欢迎你 Běijīng huānyíng nǐ" which means "''Beijing welcomes you''". [http://www.answers.com/topic/fuwa See] Answers Corporation.

== See also ==
*[[Essay:Title IX Destroys Our Olympic Team]]
*[[World History Lecture Two]]
*[[Taiwan]]
*[[Hong Kong]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/beijing/index_uk.asp INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE]
*[http://en.beijing2008.cn/ Beijing 2008]
*[http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ Embassy] People's Republic of China

[[Category:Olympics]]
[[Category:China]]

Australian Open

2009-02-05T00:05:36Z

ClydeMorris: Update

The '''Australian Open''' is an annual [[tennis]] event held in Melbourne, Australia, is one of the four events considered part of the tennis "[[Grand Slam]]."
==Past Winners<ref>http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=30&art_id=vn20080114070329223C666532</ref>==
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Winners Since 1983
|-
|2009||Rafael Nadal
|-
|2008||Novak Djokovic
|-
|2007||Roger Federer
|-
|2006||Roger Federer
|-
|2005||Marat Safin
|-
|2004||Roger Federer
|-
|2003||Andre Agassi
|-
|2002||Thomas Johansson
|-
|2001||Andre Agassi
|-
|2000||Andre Agassi
|-
|1999||Yevgeny Kafelnikov
|-
|1998||Petr Korda
|-
|1997||Pete Sampras
|-
|1996||Boris Becker
|-
|1995||Andre Agassi
|-
|1994||Pete Sampras
|-
|1993||Jim Courier
|-
|1992||Jim Courier
|-
|1991||Boris Becker
|-
|1990||Ivan Lendl
|-
|1989||Ivan Lendl
|-
|1988||Mats Wilander
|-
|1987||Stefan Edberg
|-
|1986||No Competition
|-
|1985||Stefan Edberg
|-
|1984||Mats Wilander
|-
|1983||Mats Wilander
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Sports tournaments]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Tennis]]

Talk:Atheism and health

2009-02-04T23:44:47Z

ClydeMorris: I don't believe talk pages are supposed to have such categories

It may be statistically right that people who believe in God live longer than those who do not. But still mental and physical health have nothing to do with the question whether God does or does not exist. They merely reflect the positive influence of theistic belief.

President of the United States of America

2009-02-04T23:28:51Z

ClydeMorris: /* Presidents list */ No other presidents have their middle name used so why does Obama?

[[Image:Presidential seal 506x508.gif|thumbnail|right|300px|The [[United States]] Presidential Seal]]
The '''President of the United States''' is the head of the [[United States of America|U.S.]] [[Executive Branch]]. As the [[head of state]] of the [[United States of America]] the President is one of the most powerful people in the [[world]]. The writers of the [[United States Constitution|constitution]] recognized that they were writing a job description which, in [[England]], was and is filled by the office of the [[Prime Minister]] and position of the [[Monarchy|Monarch]]. At that time, the Monarchy of England did not seem to serve the common man and the Founders wanted to create a [[government]] that did.
==Current President==
The current President is [[Barack Hussein Obama]]. He took office on January 20, 2009. His predecessor was [[George W. Bush|George Walker Bush]].

==Election==
The President is selected every four years by the American people, although not through a [[popular vote]] but rather through the [[Electoral College]]. This process makes the Presidency one of the few elected officials in the [[United States of America]] chosen indirectly, and it was intended to do so by the [[Founding Fathers]].

==Term Limits==
After [[Franklin Roosevelt]] served a little over twelve years in office, [[Congress]] passed a [[Constitutional Amendment]] restricting future Presidents to two terms.

However if the Vice President succeeds to the Presidency, with no more than two years left in the prior President's term, he is allowed to run for two terms, raising the potential time in office to ten years.

The first President to whom term limits applied was [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]].

==See Also==
[[Vice President of the United States of America]]

==Presidents list==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!President
!Years
!State
!Party
!Vice President(s)
|-
|1. [[George Washington]]
|1789-1797
|[[Virginia]]
|none
|Adams
|-
|2. [[John Adams]]
|1797-1801
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Federalist
|Jefferson
|-
|3. [[Thomas Jefferson]]
|1801-1809
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Burr, Clinton
|-
|4. [[James Madison]]
|1809-1817
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Clinton, Gerry
|-
|5. [[James Monroe]]
|1817-1825
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Tompkins
|-
|6. [[John Q. Adams]]
|1825-1829
|[[Massachusetts]]
|National Republican
|Calhoun
|-
|7. [[Andrew Jackson]]
|1829-1837
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Calhoun, Van Buren
|-
|8. [[Martin van Buren]]
|1837-1841
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|9. [[William H. Harrison]]
|1841
|none
|Whig
|Tyler
|-
|10. [[John Tyler]]
|1841-1845
|[[Virginia]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|11. [[James Knox Polk]]
|1845-1849
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Dallas
|-
|12. [[Zachary Taylor]]
|1849-1850
|none
|Whig
|Filmore
|-
|13. [[Millard Filmore]]
|1850-1853
|[[New York]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|14. [[Franklin Pierce]]
|1853-1857
|[[New Hampshire]]
|Democratic
|King
|-
|15. [[James Buchanan]]
|1857-1861
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Democratic
|Breckenridge
|-
|16. [[Abraham Lincoln]]
|1861-1865
|[[Illinois]]
|Republican
|Hamlin, Grant
|-
|17. [[Andrew Johnson]]
|1865-1869
|[[Tennessee]]
|none
|none
|-
|18. [[Ulysses S. Grant]]
|1869-1877
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Colfax, Wilson
|-
|19. [[Rutherford Hayes]]
|1877-1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Wheeler
|-
|20. [[James Garfield]]
|1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Arthur
|-
|21. [[Chester Arthur]]
|188-1885
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|none
|-
|22. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1885-1889
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Hendricks
|-
|23. [[Benjamin Harrison]]
|1889-1893
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Morton
|-
|24. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1893-1897
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Stevenson
|-
|25. [[William McKinley]]
|1897-1901
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Roosevelt
|-
|26. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|1901-1909
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|Fairbanks
|-
|27. [[William Taft]]
|1909-1913
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Sherman
|-
|28. [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|1913-1921
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic
|Marshall
|-
|29. [[Warren G. Harding]]
|1921-1923
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Coolidge
|-
|30. [[Calvin Coolidge]]
|1923-1929
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Republican
|Dawes
|-
|31. [[Herbert Hoover]]
|1929-1933
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Curtis
|-
|32. [[Franklin Roosevelt]]
|1933-1945
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Garner, [[Henry A. Wallace|Wallace]], Truman
|-
|33. [[Harry S. Truman]]
|1945-1953
|[[Kansas]]
|Democratic
|Barkley
|-
|34. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|1953-1961
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Republican
|Nixon
|-
|35. [[John F. Kennedy]]
|1961-1963
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|36. [[Lyndon Johnson]]
|1963-1969
|[[Texas]]
|Democratic
|Humphrey
|-
|37. [[Richard Nixon]]
|1969-1974
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Agnew, Ford
|-
|38. [[Gerald Ford]]
|1974-1977
|[[Nebraska]]
|Republican
|Rockefeller
|-
|39. [[Jimmy Carter]]
|1977-1981
|[[Georgia]]
|Democratic
|Mondale
|-
|40. [[Ronald Reagan]]
|1981-1989
|[[California]]
|Republican
|(H.W.) Bush
|-
|41. [[George H.W. Bush]]
|1989-1993
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Quayle
|-
|42. [[Bill Clinton]]
|1993-2001
|[[Arkansas]]
|Democratic
|Gore
|-
|43. [[George W. Bush]]
|2001-''2009''
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Cheney
|-
|44. [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barack Obama]]
|''2009 - ''
|[[Illinois]]
|Democratic
|Biden
|}

{{USPresidents}}
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Classroom prayer

2009-02-04T23:27:20Z

ClydeMorris: /* Reversion explained */ Forgot to sign

== Liberal bias? ==

Since when is ''describing'' the topic "liberal bias". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Oh... Phillip. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
:I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Classroom_prayer&oldid=464012 collaborative, previous version] was liberally biased, specifically?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how ''classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There's two problems with this.
::* First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one ''or more'' of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
::** A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
::** A student praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.
:: * Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by [[liberals]].

::: If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain ''what'' something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one ''really'' illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.
::::: Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Saying something is "controversial" is a [[liberal]] way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.

:::: The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize ''your'' side? You might want to reword that.

:::::Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no [[liberals]] have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp

:::::::::::: You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the [[theory of evolution]] is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: No, Danny, you're in denial. I answered your questions, now you answer mine: Does liberal Wikipedia call the theory of evolution "controversial" in its introductory paragraphs? I haven't even bothered to look, and I await your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Does the use of the word in Wikipedia for a specific article have anything to do with whether it has a legitimate purpose here? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: You continue to dodge and weave, but you won't answer the question I asked you - is there "controversy" between the YEC and OEC camps? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(Attempt at unindenting again) Actually Andy, I've asked three questions and made a variety of statements. You've yet to answer a single one my of my questions. I suggest doing so before you demand I respond to your question. However, I will respond nonetheless: What do Wikipedia's word choices have to do with it? You've said time and time again that this is not Wikipedia and that WP policies do not apply here. Had you not, I could have pulled out WP:POINT on your reversion of my legitimate statements.

In conclusion, Andy, it would be best if you exit this tangent and return to the original issue: How in the seven layers of the Stygian wastes is Classroom Prayer not controversial if there are two sides battling valiantly for their view to rule? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:If saying an article is controversial is a liberal trick than how come at the top of the talk page of the Barack Obama article there is a note stating "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism" [[User:ClydeMorris|ClydeMorris]]

Talk:Classroom prayer

2009-02-04T23:26:34Z

ClydeMorris: /* Reversion explained */

== Liberal bias? ==

Since when is ''describing'' the topic "liberal bias". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Oh... Phillip. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
:I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Classroom_prayer&oldid=464012 collaborative, previous version] was liberally biased, specifically?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how ''classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There's two problems with this.
::* First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one ''or more'' of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
::** A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
::** A student praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.
:: * Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by [[liberals]].

::: If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain ''what'' something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one ''really'' illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.
::::: Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Saying something is "controversial" is a [[liberal]] way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.

:::: The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize ''your'' side? You might want to reword that.

:::::Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no [[liberals]] have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp

:::::::::::: You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the [[theory of evolution]] is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: No, Danny, you're in denial. I answered your questions, now you answer mine: Does liberal Wikipedia call the theory of evolution "controversial" in its introductory paragraphs? I haven't even bothered to look, and I await your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Does the use of the word in Wikipedia for a specific article have anything to do with whether it has a legitimate purpose here? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: You continue to dodge and weave, but you won't answer the question I asked you - is there "controversy" between the YEC and OEC camps? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(Attempt at unindenting again) Actually Andy, I've asked three questions and made a variety of statements. You've yet to answer a single one my of my questions. I suggest doing so before you demand I respond to your question. However, I will respond nonetheless: What do Wikipedia's word choices have to do with it? You've said time and time again that this is not Wikipedia and that WP policies do not apply here. Had you not, I could have pulled out WP:POINT on your reversion of my legitimate statements.

In conclusion, Andy, it would be best if you exit this tangent and return to the original issue: How in the seven layers of the Stygian wastes is Classroom Prayer not controversial if there are two sides battling valiantly for their view to rule? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is saying an article is controversial is a liberal trick than how come at the top of the talk page of the Barack Obama article there is a note stating "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism"