<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=CobaltFusion</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=CobaltFusion"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/CobaltFusion"/>
	<updated>2026-10-01T03:06:02Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=989814</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=989814"/>
		<updated>2012-06-26T17:30:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in the summer after his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Catholic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=897328</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=897328"/>
		<updated>2011-08-04T17:26:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in the summer after his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=885673</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=885673"/>
		<updated>2011-07-03T17:26:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in the summer after his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{User Romans disco}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Third_Great_Awakening&amp;diff=882107</id>
		<title>Third Great Awakening</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Third_Great_Awakening&amp;diff=882107"/>
		<updated>2011-06-23T03:21:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Third Great Awakening''' was a period of religious activism in American history from the late 1850s to the 1900s. It energized [[pietistic]] or evangelical Protestant denominations&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; The pietistic or &amp;quot;evangelical&amp;quot; denomonations stressed personal relations with Christ, while the rival [[liturgical]] denominations stressed formal observances.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  and generated a strong sense of social activism, known as the [[Social Gospel]].  It gathered strength from the [[postmillennial]] theology that the Second Coming of Christ would come after mankind had reformed the entire earth. The [[Social Gospel]] Movement gained its force from the Awakening, as did the worldwide missionary movement. New groupings emerged, such as the [[Pentecostalism]], [[Holiness Movement|Holiness]] and [[Church of the Nazarene|Nazarene]] movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Overview==&lt;br /&gt;
The Protestant mainline churches were growing rapidly in numbers, wealth and educational levels, throwing off their frontier beginnings and become centered in towns and cities. Intellectuals and writers such as [[Josiah Strong]] advocated a muscular Christianity with systematic outreach to the unchurched in America and around the globe.  Others built colleges and universities to train the next generation. Each denomination supported active missionary societies, and made the role of missionary one of high prestige.  The great majority of pietistic mainline Protestants (in the North) supported the [[Republican Party]], and urged it to endorse prohibition and social reforms. See [[Third Party System]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The awakening in numerous cities in 1858 was interrupted by the [[American Civil War]]. In the South, on the other hand, the Civil War stimulated revivals, especially in General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s army. After the war, [[Dwight Moody]] made revivalism the centerpiece of his activities in Chicago by founding the [[Moody Bible Institute]]. The hymns of [[Ira Sankey]] were especially influential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Gilded Age]] plutocracy came under harsh attack from the [[Social Gospel]] preachers and with reformers in the [[Progressive Era]]. Historian [[Robert Fogel]] identifies numerous reforms, especially the battles involving child labor, compulsory elementary education and the protection of women from exploitation in factories. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fogel p 108&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The most powerful force was a crusade for the prohibition of alcohol. The major pietistic Protestant denominations all sponsored growing missionary activities inside the United States and around the world. Colleges associated with denominations rapidly expanded in number, size and quality of curriculum. The [[YMCA]] became a force in many cities, as did denominational youth groups such as the [[Epworth League]] (Methodist) and the [[Walther League]] (Lutheran).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] mobilized Protestant women for social crusades against liquor, pornography and prostitution, and sperked the demand for woman suffrage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==New sects==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Holiness Movement]] led to the formation of new denominations especially  the [[Church of the Nazarene]] (1908) and the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) (1881).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mary Baker Eddy]] introduced [[Christian Science]], which gained a national following. In 1880, the [[Salvation Army]] denomination arrived in America. Although its theology was based on ideals expressed during the [[Second Great Awakening]], its focus on poverty was of the Third. The [[Society for Ethical Culture]] was established in New York in 1876 by [[Felix Adler]] attracted a Reform Jewish clientèle.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With [[Jane Addams]]'s [[Hull House]] in Chicago as its center, the settlement house movement and the vocation of social work became a new career opportunity for reforming society directly, without using government agencies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==International impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Im (2000) compared the evangelistic method and results of the Third Great Awakening in America with the Korean revivals of 1884-1910. Many techniques of the Second and Third Great Awakenings were transposed from America to Europe, including the circuit-riding system of the Methodists, the Baptist farmer preachers, the campus revivals of the eastern seaboard, the camp meetings in the West, the new measures of [[Charles G. Finney]], the Layman's Prayer Revival, urban mass revivalism of [[D. L. Moody]], and the Student Volunteer Movement.  Im discovered four areas of influence from a comparison and analysis of the two countries' revivals: the establishment of tradition, the adoption of similar emphases, the incorporation of evangelistic methodologies, and the observation of the results of the revivals. The American revivals had a major influence on the Korean revivals, and the American revival tradition and enthusiasm toward missions helped Korean Christians develop their own religious experience and tradition. This tradition has influenced Korean churches even into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Im (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
* Abell, Aaron. ''The Urban Impact on American Protestantism, 1865-1900''  (1943).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Ahlstrom, Sydney E. ''A Religious History of the American People''. (1972), the standard scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Religious-History-American-People/dp/0300100124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195465258&amp;amp;sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bordin, Ruth. ''Woman and Temperance: The Quest for Power and Liberty, 1873-1900'' (1981).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Curtis, Susan. ''A Consuming Faith: The Social Gospel and Modern American Culture.'' (1991).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Dieter, Melvin Easterday. ''The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century'' (1980).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Dorsett, Lyle W. ''Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America '' (1991).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Dorsett, Lyle W. ''A Passion for Souls: The Life of D. L. Moody''. (1997).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Edwards, Wendy J. Deichmann.  and Carolyn De Swarte Gifford. ''Gender and the Social Gospel'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Social-Gospel-Deichmann-Edwards/dp/0252070976/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195465302&amp;amp;sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Evensen; Bruce J. ''God's Man for the Gilded Age: D.L. Moody and the Rise of Modern Mass Evangelism'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=102654424 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Findlay, James F. ''Dwight L. Moody: American Evangelist, 1837-1899'' (1969).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Finke, Roger, and Rodney Stark. ''The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy'' (1992).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Fishwick, Marshall W. ''Great Awakenings: Popular Religion and Popular Culture'' (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*  Fogel, Robert William. ''The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism'' (2000)  &lt;br /&gt;
* Giggie, John M. &amp;quot;The Third Great Awakening: Religion and the Civil Rights Movement.&amp;quot; ''Reviews in American History'' 2005 33(2): 254-262. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext: Project Muse &lt;br /&gt;
* Hutchison, William R. ''Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missions.'' (1987). &lt;br /&gt;
* Im, Chun Beh.  &amp;quot;A Critical Investigation of the Influence of the Second Great Awakening and Nineteenth-Century Revival on Revivals in Korea (1884-1910).&amp;quot;  PhD dissertation New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary 2000. 200 pp.  Citation: DAI 2001 61(10): 4044-A. DA9991964  &lt;br /&gt;
* Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)&lt;br /&gt;
*  Keller, Rosemary Skinner, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Marie Cantlon, eds. ''Encyclopedia of Women And Religion in North America'' (3 vol 2006)  [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0253346851/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Long, Kathryn Teresa. ''The Revival of 1857-58: Interpreting an American Religious Awakening'' Oxford University Press, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=80369938 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Luker, Ralph E.  ''The Social Gospel in Black and White American Racial Reform, 1885-1912.'' (1991)[http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-social-gospel-in-black-and-white-american-racial-reform-1885-1912-by-ralph-e-luker.jsp online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
*Luker, Ralph E.  &amp;quot;Liberal Theology and Social Conservatism: a Southern Tradition, 1840-1920.&amp;quot; ''Church History'' v 10#2 1981. pp 193-207 p [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=90772519 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Marty, Martin E. ''Modern American Religion, Vol. 1: The Irony of It All, 1893-1919'' (1986); ''Modern American Religion. Vol. 2: The Noise of Conflict, 1919-1941'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
*  Marsden, George M. ''Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925'' (1980). very important history [http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.questia.com/library/book/fundamentalism-and-american-culture-the-shaping-of-twentieth-century-evangelicalism-1870-1925-by-george-m-marsden.jsp&amp;amp;ei=LQkQS8PvMMWNnQfSydHWAw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=nshc&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;ved=0CBEQzgQoAQ&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNGr1zFMUHXeoK0c3xp3adpCWdjhgw online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* McClymond, Michael, ed. ''Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America.'' (2007). Vol. 1, A–Z: xxxii, 515 pp. Vol. 2, Primary Documents: xx, 663 pp. isbn 0-313-32828-5/set.)&lt;br /&gt;
* McLoughlin, William G.  ''Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham'' 1959.  &lt;br /&gt;
* McLoughlin, William G. ''Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform: An Essay on Religion and Social Change in America, 1607-1977.'' (1978).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Miller, Randall M., Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagan. ''Religion and the American Civil War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Religion-American-Civil-Randall-Miller/dp/0195121295/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195465626&amp;amp;sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/78824365 complete edition online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Sizer, Sandra. ''Gospel Hymns and Social Religion: The Rhetoric of Nineteenth-Century Revivalism.'' (1978). &lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Timothy L. ''Called Unto Holiness, the Story of the Nazarenes: The Formative Years''. Kansas City: Nazarene Publishing House, 1962.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Timothy L. ''Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War'' (1957).  &lt;br /&gt;
* Shenk, Wilbert R., ed. ''North American Foreign Missions, 1810-1914: Theology, Theory, and Policy'' (2004) 349pp important essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/North-American-Foreign-Missions-1810-1914/dp/0802824854/ref=sip_rech_dp_5 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Ward, W. R. ''The Protestant Evangelical Awakening'' (1992). [http://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Evangelical-Awakening-W-Ward/dp/0521892325/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195465571&amp;amp;sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Weisberger, Bernard A. ''They Gathered at the River: The Story of the Great Revivalists and Their Impact upon Religion in America'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Carroll, H. K. ''The Religious Forces of the United States, Enumerated, Classified and Described: Returns for 1900 and 1910 Compared with the Government Census of 1890: Condition and Characteristics of Christianity in the United States'' (1912), very usefuul sumamries of each denomination and detailed statistics. [http://books.google.com/books?id=8Z9AAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:1910+intitle:census+intitle:united+intitle:states&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;as_drrb_is=q&amp;amp;as_minm_is=0&amp;amp;as_miny_is=&amp;amp;as_maxm_is=0&amp;amp;as_maxy_is=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=3#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;f=false complete text online free]&lt;br /&gt;
* McLoughlin, William G. ed. ''The American Evangelicals, 1800-1900: An Anthology'' 1976.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====notes====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Holiness Movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Church of the Nazarene]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Pentecostalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fundamentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Social Gospel]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Second Great Awakening]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fourth Great Awakening]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Josiah Strong]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Third Party System]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:United States History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Revivals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Baptists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Progressive Era]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Gilded Age]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Missionaries]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=882100</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=882100"/>
		<updated>2011-06-23T03:15:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in the summer after his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{User Touchy}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{User Romans disco}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{User Protestant}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ur&amp;diff=881689</id>
		<title>Ur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ur&amp;diff=881689"/>
		<updated>2011-06-22T02:41:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: Removed link to a site with some unqualified information on source critcism of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Ur location.png|right|250px|thumb|Location of the Biblical city of Ur in Iraq.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The city of '''Ur''' is one of the oldest cities known to [[archaeology]], located between the [[Tigris]] and [[Euphrates]] Rivers near the [[Persian Gulf]].&amp;lt;ref name=ur&amp;gt;Stacey Pexa. [http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/ur.html Ur], ''University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology'', mnsu.edu, 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ur is a place that often bears the title &amp;quot;cradle of civilization,&amp;quot; which the [[Greeks]] called &amp;quot;the Land Between the Rivers,&amp;quot; or [[Mesopotamia]].&amp;lt;ref name=NatHist&amp;gt;Azzam Alwash. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_116/ai_n21092828/ Water at war: Iraq's marshlands, once decimated by Saddam Hussein's campaign against his own people, are reviving with global aid], ''Natural History''. FindArticles.com. 14 Nov, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.amazeingart.com/seven-wonders/ziggurat.html The Sumerian Ziggurat at Ur], ''Amazeing Art''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first settlers of this land were known as Ubaidians, identified with the Ubaid period from 5200-4500 B.C., and was ruled under a king known as Mes-Anni-Padda, who was succeeded by his son, A-Anni-Padda.&amp;lt;ref name=ur/&amp;gt; But it wasn't until the Sumerians arrived when the land developed an established civilization, because they brought with them [[art]] and [[literature]], which far surpassed that of the Ubaidians.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerhistory.html Sumerian History]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ur is one of the sites where the [[epic of Gilgamesh]] was found, written in [[cuneiform]] in an example of the world's oldest written language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Mike Francis. [http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonatwar/2009/11/scenes_from_the_cradle_of_civi.html At the Cradle of Civilization: Ziggurat of Ur], ''The Oregonian'', November 07, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; During the era when the [[Sumerian]] civilization lived in the city, Ur is believed to be the site where [[farming]] and [[writing]] first developed, from which villages first grew into cities, cities into kingdoms, and kingdoms into empires. Most of what was built in the city has long since crumbled into ruin, with the notable exception of the Sumerian &amp;quot;[[Ziggurat]] at Ur.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/ziggurats/explore/exp_main.html The Ziggurat of Ur], ''The British Museum''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The temple-pyramid is part of the ruins of an ancient Sumerian city.&amp;lt;ref name=foxnews&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575147,00.html U.S. Soldiers Among First to Tour Ancient Iraqi Temple], ''Fox News'', November 14, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another site, near the Ziggurat of Ur, is considered even more historically significant. The city is known in the [[Bible]] as &amp;quot;Ur of the Chaldees.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=ur/&amp;gt; This biblical name refers to the [[Chaldeans]], who settled the area about 900 B.C., and is believed to have been the home of [[Abraham]], a central figure in the [[Muslim]], [[Jewish]] and [[Christian]] religions.&amp;lt;ref name=foxnews/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the year 2800 B.C., Ur was a well known city in Mesopotamia, and was one of the more powerful cities in the region.  Ur was located along the ancient waterway of the [[Euphrates River]], although the river has since shifted to a position to the north of the modern archaeological site.  Because of its position near the river, Ur was in a prime location for agricultural and commercial growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The leaders of Ur were divided between three dynasties.  The first was set up in roughly 2670 B.C. by the Sumerian leader Mesanepada, who is the earliest known king from the Sumerian city-states to be mentioned in contemporary documents.  His son took over after his death around twenty years later, in 2650 B.C., and helped to construct the ancient temple of Ninhursag, five miles outside of the city's walls.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not much is known about the second dynasty of Ur, as not much mention to it is made in the historical record.  The third dynasty began in 2113 B.C., with the king Ur-Nammu as its first ruler.  Under his rule, Ur became the seat of a vast empire, and opened up an important route to the [[Persian Gulf]].  Under Ur-Nammu, the city also experienced a resurgence in art and literature, and the famous [[ziggurat]] of Nanna, a local [[pagan]] moon god, was constructed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third dynasty of Ur ended in 2004 B.C., when the [[Elamites]] overthrow the king and razed the city to the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ur was rebuilt soon after its destruction, it became part of the kingdom of Isin.  As politics in the region shifted, so did control of the city, until it eventually became a part of the empire of [[Babylon]].  Further shifts in control of the city eventually put it under the control of the [[Assyrians]], and of King [[Nebuchadnezzar]] II.  A few more generations of Assyrian kings ruled over Ur, until finally, [[Persia]] conquered Babylonia, and the city began to become less prominent.  Possibly because of the movement of the Euphrates River away from the city, Ur became all but uninhabited by 300 B.C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Archaeology==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British consul J.E. Taylor was the first western archaeologist to do a considerable amount of work at the ruins of Ur, excavating much of the ziggurat of Nanna during an expedition from 1854-1855.  Later expeditions to the site continued, mostly carried out by the British, through the early decades of the twentieth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evidence of a flood was also discovered in the ruins of the city, leading some to believe that it may have been the origin of flood legends from throughout the region, including the story of the [[Great Flood]] contained in the Biblical book of [[Genesis]].  However, most archaeologists doubt that this could have imprinted so heavily on the region's literature, as the flood was probably not all that large, and small floods around the Euphrates were likely not that uncommon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==As a religious center==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ur was a prominent center of the worship of the moon god Nana, as evidenced by the enormous ziggurat found in the ruins outside of the city.  The worship of Nanna's Babylonian equivalent, a god called Sin, also occurred in the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Abraham]], the founder of the Judeo-Christian belief system, may have also come from Ur, although there are some questions as to whether the biblical Ur of the Chaldees is a reference to the city of Ur or not.  At the time that Abraham lived in Ur, he would have been named Abram.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/ancientarchitecture/g/Ziggurat.htm Ziggurat - Ancient Towering Temples or Ziggurats]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEh-iXnud60 Ziggurat of Ur], Video&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Timelines/2210-2090%20BC.htm Timeline 2210-2090 BC]&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Babylon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iraq]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Articles in need of an image]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_week&amp;diff=881678</id>
		<title>Creation week</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_week&amp;diff=881678"/>
		<updated>2011-06-22T02:20:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: Please see the talk page for a summary of my removal reason.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''creation week''' is the seven days described in the [[Bible]] during which God created the universe, including the day of rest.    The six days on which God created are collectively referred to as the Hexaemeron.&lt;br /&gt;
== Length of the days ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Bible does not of course say that each day was 24 hours, because hours are a later human invention, but there is sufficient reason for believing the days to be normal days.  These reasons include:&lt;br /&gt;
* The Hebrew word ''yom'' (day) must mean a normal day in the context of Genesis 1.  In Genesis 1, each day is numbered and used with the words &amp;quot;morning and evening&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
** ''Yom'' only ever means a normal day when used with a number.&lt;br /&gt;
** ''Yom'' only ever means a normal day when used with &amp;quot;morning&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
** ''Yom'' only ever means a normal day when used with &amp;quot;evening&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
* God used the seven days of creation as a basis for keeping the [[sabbath]] every seven days, in the [[Ten Commandments]].&lt;br /&gt;
* Each day is ''defined'' as comprising a morning and an evening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That the passage describes normal days is the consensus of the experts.  Professor James Barr, former Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford University, wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{quoteBox|...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: ... creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience ... Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the &amp;quot;days&amp;quot; of creation to be long eras of time ... are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943/ Should Genesis be taken literally?] by Russell Grigg, ''Creation'', vol. 16 No. 1 p. 38.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Narrative or poetry? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the rise in popularity of ideas that the Earth is much older than would be indicated by a straightforward reading of Genesis, many people have proposed that the creation account is poetry rather than literal history.&lt;br /&gt;
However, there are a number of reasons to reject this proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The quote from James Barr (above), points out that the language indicates that the writer intended it to be understood as actual history.&lt;br /&gt;
The style of writing does not conform to the distinctive style of Hebrew poetry, which includes, among other characteristics, parallelism of thoughts.&lt;br /&gt;
A statistical analysis of the verbs used in the [[Old Testament]] shows that percentage of [[preterite]] verbs in narrative accounts have a median value of 52%, whilst the percentage in poetic passages have a median value of 4%.&lt;br /&gt;
The creation account in Genesis has a preterite verb percentage of about 65%.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeYoung, Don, &amp;quot;Thousands... not Billions&amp;quot;, Master Books, 2005, p.157-167.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Sabbath Rest==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The common literary feature of the creation week is that it is broken down into days. Different English translations have different styles in the English, but the main feature is the way the creation week is broken down into listed days. The following is the last verse in the first creation account.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Bible quote|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=1-3|version=NIV|Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.  By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.  And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This change in literary structure is considered important by some, who claim, despite the past tense, that it conveys an idea that is found in several other Bible stories: The seventh day is still continuing, it never ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mankind was created in day six, likely the last thing created in that day. According to this idea, mankind then fell. God, in his mercy is at rest in this day of mankind's fall, but he is working doing one thing: Rescuing fallen mankind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other views ==&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the arguments listed above, some Christians try to harmonise the biblical account with naturalistic science, usually by interpreting the days to be long periods of time, figurative days, days of revelation of the account, or other explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some do this by claiming that there was a &amp;quot;[[Gap theory|gap]]&amp;quot; of millions or even billions of years between the events of Gen1:1 and Gen 1:2, into which the billions of years of naturalistic science and the fossils are placed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Gap Theory]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Others do this by reference to [[Theistic evolution]] or [[Guided evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_week&amp;diff=881677</id>
		<title>Talk:Creation week</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_week&amp;diff=881677"/>
		<updated>2011-06-22T02:19:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikiproject Religion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Test of orthodoxy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure if the length of the creation week is a &amp;quot;good test of orthodoxy.&amp;quot; There are many theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists too, who are orthodox Christians. This should be set off with &amp;quot;according to (someone)...&amp;quot; [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:21, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: It's probably better off not being there, although there is some truth to it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 19 February 2009 (EST)\]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, now I am changing the &amp;quot;test of orthodoxy&amp;quot; bit. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 09:34, 7 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm going to just remove it, because I think that the page is better off without it.  Most Young Earth Creation ministries are pretty explicit that YEC ''shouldn't'' be used as a test of orthodoxy.  This seems like the opinion of the person who created the page, and since the majority of Young Earth ministries don't agree with him, I think that it needs to be removed. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 22:19, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=881568</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=881568"/>
		<updated>2011-06-21T18:17:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in the summer after his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=876250</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=876250"/>
		<updated>2011-06-06T20:50:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in the summer after his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is possibly a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&amp;diff=864982</id>
		<title>Mennonite</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&amp;diff=864982"/>
		<updated>2011-04-29T16:31:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''Mennonite''' is an adherent to an [[Anabaptist]] movement begun in the 1500's by [[Menno Simons]].  They practice adult [[baptism]], [[pacifism]], simple living and have an emphasis on community. Mennonites reject the notion of [[sola scriptura]], believing instead that the Bible was inspired when it was written and therefore must be inspired when it is read.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most are of German or Swiss descent, and live as very hard-working farmers. Most Mennonites live in the U.S. (Pennsylvania to Indiana, and Great Plains) and Canada (Prairie Provinces); Some live in Argentina and the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Old Order Mennonites have a simple way of living, wear traditional clothes and avoid modern technology.  Other Mennonites use the same types of technology and wear the same types of clothes as other modern people.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amish and Mennonites==&lt;br /&gt;
The Amish and Mennonite churches share the same beliefs concerning baptism, non-resistance, and basic Bible doctrines. They differ in matters of dress, technology, language, form of worship, and interpretation of the Bible. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.800padutch.com/amishhistory.shtml Lancaster PA &amp;amp; the Amish Country website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Disaster relief==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mennonites are strongly involved with disaster relief, particularly through the [[Mennonite Central Committee]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mcc.org/ Mennonite Central Committee&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[Mennonite Disaster Services]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mds.mennonite.net/ Mennonite Disaster Service Website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  They also distribute [[fair trade]] goods through Ten Thousand Villages shops. Ten Thousand Villages is a nonprofit program of the Mennonite Central Committee. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tenthousandvillages.com/php/about.us/about.vision.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Separation and distinct beliefs == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Old Order Mennonites are distinctive from most denominations becuase they do not use the same level of technology as most other people living in the world today.  Despite common stereotypes, this is not out of a belief that technology is inherently evil. Many believe that modern technology could potentially harm their community in other ways, however. The level of technology allowed may differ from one Old Order Mennonite branch to another.  Some may choose to allow vehicles (generally plain black) and other modern technologies, while others do not.  Some of these communities also do not meet in churches rather in homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Pacifism]]&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.mennoniteusa.org/ Mennonite Church USA&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&amp;diff=864981</id>
		<title>Mennonite</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&amp;diff=864981"/>
		<updated>2011-04-29T16:30:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''Mennonite''' is an adherent to an [[Anabaptist]] movement begun in the 1500's by [[Menno Simons]].  They practice adult [[baptism]], [[pacifism]], simple living and have an emphasis on community. Mennonites reject the notion of [[sola scriptura]], believing instead that the Bible was inspired when it was written and therefore must be inspired when it is read.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most are of German or Swiss descent, and live as very hard-working farmers. Most Mennonites live in the U.S. (Pennsylvania to Indiana, and Great Plains) and Canada (Prairie Provinces); Some live in Argentina and the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Old Order Mennonites have a simple way of living, wear traditional clothes and avoid modern technology.  Other Mennonites use the same types of technology and wear the same types of clothes as other modern people.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amish and Mennonites==&lt;br /&gt;
The Amish and Mennonite churches share the same beliefs concerning baptism, non-resistance, and basic Bible doctrines. They differ in matters of dress, technology, language, form of worship, and interpretation of the Bible. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.800padutch.com/amishhistory.shtml Lancaster PA &amp;amp; the Amish Country website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Disaster relief==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mennonites are strongly involved with disaster relief, particularly through the [[Mennonite Central Committee]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mcc.org/ Mennonite Central Committee&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[Mennonite Disaster Services]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mds.mennonite.net/ Mennonite Disaster Service Website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  They also distribute [[fair trade]] goods through Ten Thousand Villages shops. Ten Thousand Villages is a nonprofit program of the Mennonite Central Committee. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tenthousandvillages.com/php/about.us/about.vision.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Separation and distinct beliefs == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Old order Mennonites are distinctive from most denominations becuase they do not use the same level of technology as most other people living in the world today.  Despite common stereotypes, this is not out of a belief that technology is inherently evil. Many believe that modern technology could potentially harm their community in other ways, however. The level of technology allowed may differ from one Old Order Mennonite branch to another.  Some may choose to allow vehicles (generally plain black) and other modern technologies, while others do not.  Some of these communities also do not meet in churches rather in homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Pacifism]]&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.mennoniteusa.org/ Mennonite Church USA&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mennonite&amp;diff=864980</id>
		<title>Talk:Mennonite</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mennonite&amp;diff=864980"/>
		<updated>2011-04-29T16:28:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I wonder if &amp;quot;Old Order Mennonites&amp;quot; have wood burning computers? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 20:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Some have normal computers. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can Mennonites be considered conservative? On the face of it as Christians they should, but they seem to espouse some liberal values such as pacifism and rejection of wealth. [[User:Levitican|Levitican]] 20:38, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::their pacifism and rejection of wealth comes from their reading of the New Testament. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:10, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've edited this page to remove some inaccurate information.  Another editor posted that the Old Order Mennonites avoid technology because they believe that it is evil and from the devil.  This is a common stereotype, but not true. Old Order Mennonite beliefs on technology and what is acceptable are complex.  [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 12:28, 29 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&amp;diff=864976</id>
		<title>Mennonite</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&amp;diff=864976"/>
		<updated>2011-04-29T16:25:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: Removed inaccurate information&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''Mennonite''' is an adherent to an [[Anabaptist]] movement begun in the 1500's by [[Menno Simons]].  They practice adult [[baptism]], [[pacifism]], simple living and have an emphasis on community. Mennonites reject the notion of [[sola scriptura]], believing instead that the Bible was inspired when it was written and therefore must be inspired when it is read.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most are of German or Swiss descent, and live as very hard-working farmers. Most Mennonites live in the U.S. (Pennsylvania to Indiana, and Great Plains) and Canada (Prairie Provinces); Some live in Argentina and the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Old Order Mennonites have a simple way of living, wear traditional clothes and avoid modern technology.  Other Mennonites use the same types of technology and wear the same types of clothes as other modern people.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amish and Mennonites==&lt;br /&gt;
The Amish and Mennonite churches share the same beliefs concerning baptism, non-resistance, and basic Bible doctrines. They differ in matters of dress, technology, language, form of worship, and interpretation of the Bible. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.800padutch.com/amishhistory.shtml Lancaster PA &amp;amp; the Amish Country website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Disaster relief==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mennonites are strongly involved with disaster relief, particularly through the [[Mennonite Central Committee]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mcc.org/ Mennonite Central Committee&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[Mennonite Disaster Services]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mds.mennonite.net/ Mennonite Disaster Service Website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  They also distribute [[fair trade]] goods through Ten Thousand Villages shops. Ten Thousand Villages is a nonprofit program of the Mennonite Central Committee. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tenthousandvillages.com/php/about.us/about.vision.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Separation and distinct beliefs == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Old order Mennonites are distinctive from most denominations becuase they do not use a higher level of modern technology than is necessary.  Despite common stereotypes, this is not out of a belief that technology is inherently evil. Many believe that modern technology could potentially harm their community in other ways, however. Some of these communities also do not meet in churches rather in homes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Pacifism]]&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.mennoniteusa.org/ Mennonite Church USA&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_Giving_Birth_the_Bible_Way_Better%3F&amp;diff=834543</id>
		<title>Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_Giving_Birth_the_Bible_Way_Better%3F&amp;diff=834543"/>
		<updated>2010-12-27T18:38:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm BIRTH THE BIBLE WAY] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can anyone read German and are they interested in relaying the info in the citation below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The German journal Der Spiegel had a report on the mother’s best position for giving birth.(1986, Number 43, 278-288)&amp;quot;[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:...the much more interesting problem would be to obtain a copy of an article from an issue that's just a few years younger than I am. Oh, wait, checking with the online archive makes me guess it's this one: [http://service.spiegel.de/digas/find?DID=13521283 Costs 50 cents to buy.] Judging by the title, it's a discussion/debate between a gynecologist and an... ethno-doctor? Not sure how that term translates. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ethno-doctor,&amp;quot; as you so aptly put it - think &amp;quot;ethnographer&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;anthropologist.&amp;quot; [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 21:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Possible - I have absolutely no idea about the terminology in that field. *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no bible way to give birth[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Even if you consider a seated position the &amp;quot;Biblical&amp;quot; way to give birth, then you have to trace this practice back even further.  There are inscriptions in Egyptian temples that show women giving birth in a seated position.  Since the Egyptian practice predates the Bible by thousands of years, this means the Egyptians must be correct.  Hail Ra! [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 12:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a biological standpoint, that method of giving birth actually is better because it allows gravity to pull down on the baby while it is being born.  Women giving birth laying on their backs actually have more difficulty for that reason, hence why many ancient civilizations (including the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Hebrews, some of the earliest civilizations on Earth) used seated birth methods or something similar.  It's not a religious requirement, but medically, it's probably better for the mother and the baby (because of the shorter time spent in the birth canal and lower stress as a result of that). [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:45, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=820173</id>
		<title>User talk:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=820173"/>
		<updated>2010-09-25T02:05:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Removal of material... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ordinarily I would revert your removal, even though it was your own post, however everyone has the opportunity to re-think their opinions. More instructive still, if you don't like what you posted, would have been to give some insight as to why your opinion has changed. Peace. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:04, 15 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=820172</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=820172"/>
		<updated>2010-09-25T02:01:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is in his second year of college, planning to major in history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=820171</id>
		<title>User talk:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=820171"/>
		<updated>2010-09-25T01:50:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Removal of material... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ordinarily I would revert your removal, even though it was your own post, however everyone has the opportunity to re-think their opinions. More instructive still, if you don't like what you posted, would have been to give some insight as to why your opinion has changed. Peace. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:04, 15 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm sorry for removing my content instead of changing the edit, but I suffer from OCD, and sometimes become very nervous that something could be morally wrong with what I write.  Instead of changing the edit and then getting frustrated over it, I will usually just delete it under those circumstances. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 21:50, 24 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=820169</id>
		<title>Talk:CE</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=820169"/>
		<updated>2010-09-25T01:47:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: Deleted my own edit because of changing opinions; I no longer felt my edit was relevant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity.  However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads &amp;quot;While use of &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.&amp;quot;  In fact, although it is not accepted by the &amp;quot;common culture&amp;quot; of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech.  They count the days or months instead of naming them.  For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day.  In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers.  Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something.  For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc.  It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj.  By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc.  The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity.  For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, on checking, I find that &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; can be &lt;br /&gt;
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in &amp;quot;the common era of the Jews.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
*a term used to distinguish the &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. &amp;quot;puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era.&amp;quot;[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&amp;amp;id=qLfiIApQVDkC&amp;amp;pg=PA33&amp;amp;lpg=PA33&amp;amp;dq=%22common+era%22&amp;amp;as_brr=1]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the phrase has been in use for well over a century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus: &amp;quot;The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760&amp;quot; (where B. C. here means &amp;quot;before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&amp;amp;id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&amp;amp;pg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;lpg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era).&amp;quot; [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&amp;amp;id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;pg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;lpg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1889: &amp;quot;Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era.&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Red Men&amp;quot; here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&amp;amp;id=kZLbGv92SjUC&amp;amp;pg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;lpg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that &amp;quot;Christian era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;the system used by Christians,&amp;quot; whereas calling the AD/BC system the &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;this system used by everyone&amp;quot; and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's fascinating material.  Thanks.  Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin.  It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!!  In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people.  My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.&lt;br /&gt;
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source.  In Rabbi Raphall's &amp;quot;Post Biblical History of the Jews&amp;quot;, he uses BCE, and you start seeing &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; and either &amp;quot;ACE&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;CE&amp;quot; from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
What do you mean &amp;quot;It's not in the 1972 dictionary&amp;quot;? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for &amp;quot;in the year of (Our) Lord&amp;quot;) and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless &amp;quot;professor of European history&amp;quot; as quoted here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means &amp;quot;the date commonly accepted and used.&amp;quot; But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some brief points:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues? &lt;br /&gt;
88888888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling?  &amp;quot;Organize&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;Organise.&amp;quot;  I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies.  Bigotry, maybe.  You're a moron.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to fill the bill&amp;quot; rather suddenly get replaced with &amp;quot;to fit the bill&amp;quot; circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to go missing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;went missing,&amp;quot; which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Original Research ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the &amp;quot;western&amp;quot; powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the   original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.&lt;br /&gt;
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; from the vocabulary of the general public.  I absolutely love Liberal Logic!  --[[User:David R|&amp;amp;lt;&amp;amp;lt;-David R-&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: If the general public doesn't want the the word &amp;quot;LORD&amp;quot; in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Common Sense, ppl ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of &amp;quot;wikipedia's bias&amp;quot; signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. &amp;quot;Its just a reference date.&amp;quot; That felt good, huh?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi Dialogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever?  What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means?  Furthermore the &amp;quot;reference&amp;quot; doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was.  It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person.  It doesn't sound encyclopaedic.  [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the &amp;quot;Common Error&amp;quot; doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christian Era==&lt;br /&gt;
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....&lt;br /&gt;
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord&amp;quot; aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; and the patronizing &amp;quot;Year of our Lord&amp;quot; would be something along the lines of AJ for &amp;quot;Year of Jesus.&amp;quot; It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his &amp;quot;Lord.&amp;quot; --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.  Dictionaries could be referenced at least.  A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Current Era&amp;quot; as other meanings for &amp;quot;CE.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of dictionary definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more.  I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot;, linking it to &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot;, which is defined as &amp;quot;the period dating from the birth of Christ&amp;quot;. Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unfortunate Truth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call &amp;quot;Conservatism&amp;quot; is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.&lt;br /&gt;
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- &amp;quot;No Liberalist Bias&amp;quot; and state the example of &amp;quot;terrorists&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;calling a spade a spade&amp;quot; so to speak and not attempting to hide their &amp;quot;true nature&amp;quot;. But isn't the &amp;quot;terrorist&amp;quot; label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.&lt;br /&gt;
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?&lt;br /&gt;
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives ARE the Devil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Locked? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why has this article been locked?  Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia?  Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this.  --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality.  It's not.  It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I've always heard something different ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Before the Christian Era.&amp;quot;--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Did you hear that from some Christians?  Anyway, you heard wrong.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron.  What exactly does this prove?  Also, the term is &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; not (chuckle) &amp;quot;Christian Era.&amp;quot;  The people who made the calendars were Christian.  Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone.  So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive.  What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do?  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ?  If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ.  Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus].  (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic &amp;quot;BC/BCE&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;AD/CE&amp;quot; are used there.)  Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find &amp;quot;BCE/CE&amp;quot; used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same &amp;quot;starting point&amp;quot; as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== more common ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:No it's not.  BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The word &amp;quot;erase&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd.  The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further.  Moving along:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced &amp;quot;B.C./A.D.&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; symbols over the past decade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This claim is completely uncited.  As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== British date format becoming more common in America! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!&lt;br /&gt;
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ISO 8601 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year &amp;quot;0000&amp;quot; which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year &amp;quot;-100&amp;quot; is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Étienne Léger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Merrium websters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis.  But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Main Entry:Common Era&lt;br /&gt;
Function:noun &lt;br /&gt;
Date:1846&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 : CHRISTIAN ERA&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Entry:Christian era&lt;br /&gt;
Function:noun &lt;br /&gt;
Date:1657&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 : the period dating from the birth of Christ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Entry:CE&lt;br /&gt;
Function:abbreviation &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 chemical engineer&lt;br /&gt;
2 civil engineer&lt;br /&gt;
3 Christian Era —  often punctuated; Common Era;   often punctuated&lt;br /&gt;
4 Corps of Engineers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --[[User:JerriahD|JerriahD]] 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Weekdays ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why this was eliminated?&lt;br /&gt;
: Those pagan names were successfully replaced only in Portuguese, due to the efforts of Martinho de Dume, roman catholic bishop of Braga (518 - 579). See, for example [http://www.portuguese-resource.co.uk/?page_id=344 this text in Portuguese] or [http://gobrazil.about.com/od/travelportuguese/qt/daynames.htm this text in English]&lt;br /&gt;
Just because it shows that Portuguese is a more Christian language than English? :-) [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:45, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Let Portugal do as it pleases, but don't bring Portuguese policy here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This has nothing to do with atheistic denial of the basis of a dating system.  And, by the way, atheists seem just fine with the pagan weekdays while they insist on erasing reference to Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I don't dispute your basic point, but in fact atheists ''have'' abolished pagan names for weekdays - at least in the past. The atheistic and socialist French Revolution instituted a calendar in which there were 12 months of 30 days each, named largely after the Parisian weather, and in which each week had ten days simply named after numbers (primidi, duodi, tridi and so on). You are totally correct that modern atheists seem more intent on removing references to Christianity than references to more primitive religions, however. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:54, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General clean-up ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey everyone! I fixed some grammar issues, and generally tried to make this article more encyclopedic and 'clean.' I also added some more history about where the terms CE and AD come from; hope I helped! God bless. [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:02, 21 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;A later edition (11th)&amp;quot; in the lede ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;A later edition (11th)&amp;quot; in the lede is confusing.  Edition of what?  What did the earlier edition say?  Thanks!  [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 12:51, 11 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ab Urbe Condita ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Couldn't the science movement use the AUC notation, or since the founding of the city (of Rome). Classical antiquity is arguably the start of modern science, and if they use AUC they won't have to deny the Saviour of mankind in order to remain politically correct.[[User:PeterZ|PeterZ]] 23:51, 21 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: People can use whatever system of dates they like.  But if they use the Christian dating system, then honesty requires stating its source: BC and AD, not something that erases the basis of the dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 22 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_waterboarding_torture%3F&amp;diff=805871</id>
		<title>Debate:Is waterboarding torture?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_waterboarding_torture%3F&amp;diff=805871"/>
		<updated>2010-08-15T17:16:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Yes==&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, we need to torture muslims if they bomb us. I support it.&lt;br /&gt;
:Hmm. That makes perfect sense. With that logic, let's torture all of the guys in the USAF because they bomb innocent civilians. Does that make sense? And you just stereotyped 1.6 billion people. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Waterboarding is defined as torture by US law[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html], The UN[http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm] (which also states &amp;quot;No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture&amp;quot;). --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:31, 19 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Waterboarding is definitely torture, and isn't justified or even particularly useful in most situations.  &amp;quot;Ticking bomb&amp;quot; scenarios like the kind you see on TV don't often happen in real life, and even on the rare occasions when they do, a terrorist who is willing to plant a bomb and blow up people on the street is also going to be able to be determined enough to do wrong that he can withstand torture. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:31, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait a minute - 'we need to torture muslims if they bomb us' - you mean you wouldn't torture others who bomb you?  Are you suggesting that Followers of Islam are in some way more deserving of torture?  Other than that, if you advocate the torture of prisoners (be they Prisoners of War in the technical sense or not) then surely you abandon any right to be appalled if other nations/organisations adopt the same tactics with captured Americans..? [[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:34, 14 May 2007 (BST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Why_have_conservatives_let_themselves_get_a_bad_name%3F&amp;diff=805868</id>
		<title>Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Why_have_conservatives_let_themselves_get_a_bad_name%3F&amp;diff=805868"/>
		<updated>2010-08-15T17:13:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
::&lt;br /&gt;
I'm young (22) and exposed to a large group of liberals (in college) but it seems to me that the conservative movement has had a real problem with dirty tricks. Nixon was famous for it, outside of watergate his staffers ordered large numbers of pizzas for his opponents to pay for and invited foreign dignitaries and the like to the campaign events of his opponents so they would show up and be turned away at the door. The Neocon movement has embraced torture despite the fact that the US pretty flatly declared that no circumstances of threat could justify torture back in the 80's when we were the great nation leading the world away from torture. Conservatives are supposed to embrace personal liberty and small government, but many want draconian laws limiting free speech and think its alright to give govt. the power to enforce them. Unwarranted surveillance and sending troops to war with out a declaration from congress. This isn't conservative, we are not holding on to our constitution or our values, we are giving them up one by one to do something that looks clever. I see it in religion too, a great many people seem to have a religious outlook on existence that is based on tricking God into giving them eternal life, and attitude where they can go through life being awful in Gods name and then repent and be fine and that Jesus will forgive them because they are sinners. Personally I am a very forgiving individual, but if I learn that someone is going to do something to hurt me and assumes that I will forgive them because they ask me too I am likely to tell them just where they can stick there apology; If you premeditate remorse in to your plan to do something wrong as far as I am concerned no one with even a fraction of all knowing could possibly see that remorse as true rather than an insult on top of the prior wrong doing. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It is because a lot of conservative principles are abhorrent things like opposition to equal rights for everyone, railing against food stamps, and killing middle eastern people.  Also if you are not a WASP, you are an America-hating commie, according to the conservative talking heads on tv. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Nixon was a liberal Republican just as Bush and the neo-conservatives are. Brendanw is right about neoconservatism, I frequently tell people that Bush is an &amp;quot;FDR pro-business liberal&amp;quot; and they laugh at me, when in reality neoconservatism was a word invented by &amp;amp; for the anti-Johnson, anti-hippie, pro-business left-wingers of the 1940s (i.e. FDR's Bretton Woods and wanting to end Social Security after the Depression). In addition, most people don't understand how monetary policy and inflation work. (In elementary school until late high school, I could not understand why someone would be &amp;quot;pro-business&amp;quot; instead of pro-poor, and called myself a &amp;quot;Democratic Communist&amp;quot; lol)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for the religion issue, I think people hate Christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not motivated by specific hate for specifically Christianity. My father suggests their respect for freedom coupled with hate for Christianity might be Satan-influenced. Who knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Racism is an issue with many conservatives, I hate to say it but it is a problem we have to face in order to remove a stereotype. While most people want to deal with illegal immigration, reverse discrimination, and preservation of language and culture for non-racist reasons, some seem to be motivated by a subtle racism. For example, I don't know if you've ever heard the Richard Bergis staged prank calls (available on YouTube), but one describes the problem of this subtle racism perfectly. The pranksters tell Bergis that there will be a black NASCAR driver, and at first he starts out making racist jokes, then it's &amp;quot;Can't white people have one thing for themselves?&amp;quot; and finally a slew of insults, racial slurs, and swearing. Now this is exaggerated and (judging by the other ones) fake, but you get my idea. If we are to defeat this stereotype, people who support paleoist ideas have to make it clear that they are not motivated by racism or anti-Semitism and why.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: And most importantly, biases of left-wing media outlets such as CNN and the once-libertarian-leaning MSNBC must be effectively challenged and exposed by Fox News and talk radio. The left criticizes us for &amp;quot;entertainment news&amp;quot; and reliance on personalities with opinions, but unlike the left' supposed lack of bias we admit it's &amp;quot;opinion&amp;quot;. Blogs can help as well in getting the public to realize that there is no &amp;quot;objective news&amp;quot; and each side has an agenda. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Hippocracy.  Plain and simple.  Conservatives preach and preach but do not hold themselves to the same standards as they try to hold others to.  Also, (as on this site) conservatives will use blatantly illogical arguments to attempt to 'prove' their points.  Once an intelligent person realizes that these methods are completely ridiculous, conservatives lose credibility.  i.e. the one point that I have seen come up time and time again on this site is claiming that somehow a series of arguments have a statistical chance of being 'true' just due to their number.  When you try to convince someone that evolution is false by stating that &amp;quot;If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true becomes very small (only a 4.6% chance that evolution is true with 60 possible counterexamples).&amp;quot;  Now, the fact of the matter is that this &amp;quot;5%&amp;quot; chance of being correct is just not true.  Merely listing possibilities does not grant any of them a chance of being true.  Conversely, that statement of evolution only having a 4.6% chance of being correct is totally made up.  You cannot expect people to take conservatives seriously if you are going to use that kind of nonsense logic.  I can list 1,000 counterexamples and still have ZERO chance that any of them are true.  This illogical argument is used many times, and its still as false in its reasoning as the first time used. &lt;br /&gt;
So to sum up, until conservatives begin a)using SOUND LOGIC and FACTS for their arguments rather than this circular &amp;quot;my proof is a link to my own website where i made up all the facts and figures im quoting&amp;quot; b)entertaining the possibility that, yes...everybody is wrong sometimes.  Some dearly held conservative beliefs are going to be wrong.  Sorry.  The sooner that you realize that the &amp;quot;real truth&amp;quot; is probably a blend of your beliefs and the beliefs of your opponents, the better we'll all be.  The world is not black and white... and c)The Bible cannot be used as factual evidence.  Sorry guys, you cannot admit faith is a major component of the Bible/Christianity and then try to use the Bible as a source of fact.  Factual proof does not go hand in hand with Faith.  Cant have it both ways.&lt;br /&gt;
--Lono&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, I'm a realist. I'm conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. Let me define the two terms the way I view them. Conservative: keeping things the same, tradition, embracing what works realistically at a given time.  Liberal: Thinking outside of convention, newness, rebelliousness to norm.  I have both qualities, its part of being human. I believe in gun ownership and also the right to burn the flag.  I do not lean to one side or another like the media. The media and politics have forced people to pick sides. But the biggest thing, in my view, that gives conservatives a bad name is that most individuals that declare they are conservative do not think outside the box and impede good progress. Don't forget, the american revolution was a liberal move. Also, many conservatives I know let nationalism and religion cloud true reason. Most liberally minded people think outside the box and rebel and cause much pain for themselves, BUT in doing that searching they find truths and ideas that challenge those who do not challenge convention but merely accept it for what it is. Conservatives have a bad name because they refuse to see things from a liberal viewpoint. Instead they blame it on the devil or something like that. This is the 21st century, its high time our minds start questioning. --Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for your candid analysis, but it sounds like you're on a path to atheism, and 99% of atheists end up being liberal.  This may be the 21st century, but evil hasn't magically disappeared.  Censoring the Bible, the most logical book ever written, doesn't make it any less true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 6 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Shlafly, it's an honor to meet you. &lt;br /&gt;
I am not against the bible but you cannot rule out other religions that add to the vast scope of the human experience. I was raised lutheran and went to a lutheran school for most of my life. The Bible does have logical teachings. There is &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; in the world but saying that it stems from the devil is a belief, not a fact. It can be a fact to many conservative people who will fight for it, and that's the problem. There is no evidence and that is frowned upon by many people. What I meant by it's the 21st century is that we have reached a growth in civilization where it is time to look for new answers to old problems. I believe that people's actions and thoughts can hurt the world around us, be it aggression or mere ignorance, but being atheist does not con-notate a bad thing but merely a lack of belief in what there is not enough evidence for. They rebel to tradition. Philosophically, what evidence do you have outside the bible that evil appeared in the 1st place? -That being something a liberal would ask. I would also like to hear your concise opinion on what a liberal is.  Also, here's a link to an interesting video: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html   -- Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lack of [[faith]] is the single greatest cause of depression and despair.  There have been famous [[atheists]], some of whom went crazy.  The output of that belief system is mostly harmful.  Contrast that with the output of Christianity.  How many atheistic hospitals have been built compared with Christian hospitals, for example?  That is virtually zero compared with thousands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 7 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been famous christians, some of whom went crazy. I can argue against the output of religion as much as I can against atheism. Atheism and liberalism by nature are to offset convention and cause a tempest, call it growing pains. The night is always darkest just before the dawn, you cannot have newness without destroying what was there before. Therefore, Rome changing from pagan to christian also had a harmful output. It is all about perspective. I agree with your hospital bit, but there are almost no atheist hospitals because there is no atheist church that gives contributions. Christianity is also more organized. Atheists are normally against any spiritual organization. As for lack of faith causing depression, I would have to agree and disagree. It has been proven that people with faith live longer and happier lives. Religion is the opiate of the masses. It can be mind control and it can be wrong but it can make us feel confident and gives us drive. Atheists usually have no religious motivation, atheists are wandering and exploring. As somewhat of an atheist, I do not mind that searching because every stone I turn over has another truth. I do not mind sacrificing a comfortable, structured life to enable myself to see the complexities of this world. Jesus taught how to live your life. I agree with his teaching of love and we should strive to be as loving and tolerant as him. But God, a creator, that is a different story altogether... &lt;br /&gt;
Let me bring up conservationism and liberalism again. Conservatives get a bad name because of their blatant bias. A liberal can form a bias over time but the natural liberal has NO bias. Liberals are searching for new answers and thinking outside of convention. Conservatives will do whatever they can to uphold convention no matter how unrealistic it may be. They will target opponents personally. Lets look at the root words of liberal and conservative. Conservative: CONSERVe, CONvention. Liberal: LIBERAte, deLIBERAte, LIBERty.  Conservativism is to conserve tradition and liberalism is to free oneself, deliberate and discuss complexities. All in all, liberals use critical thinking to answer questions, conservatives seem to use the answers of tradition and their bias as what is normal based on how they have been conditioned over the years in their social surroundings. FOX news targeted the children who were singing about Obama and called it &amp;quot;indoctrination&amp;quot;. The facts in that situation is that the children were given permission slips which all parents signed and they sung about every president. FOX merely looked at children singing a song about Obama and wanted to relate to nazi germany. I'm sorry but that is blatant BIAS! Look us the definition of bias and you will find that it is a belief in something based on unfairness and narrow-mindedness. Being open to ideas, being liberal is NOT having a bias. ---Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well here's a question, regarding the output of atheism and Christianity, and the dark before the dawn. How long a time of negative output do you allow atheism before you change your mind and say that atheism is likely not capable of great positive output? Christianity began to have positive output within the first few hundred years of its existence. Has atheism, in the form of Enlightenment thinking and modern secular humanism had the same positive output? If you think it has do you have any examples? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:27, 8 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, your argument leaves out libertarians, neoconservatives, some paleoconservatives (like Raimondo), Jews, atheists, agnostics, gays, probably even pagans and Muslims, and plenty of others who would call themselves conservatives and combining it all under the Christian Right. Plenty of conservatives favor change, even forward change. For example, neoconservatives are against laissez-faire capitalism and could support left-leaning pro-business economic policy. Plenty of conservative think tanks can make these arguments. There are varying reactions to technology in a world changing since 1776, namely with regard to stem-cell research and human cloning, and even with copyright policy, from the original time-limited government grant to recent views of a private property right. And with the conservatives supporting greater individual rights, your own life, and the life of the ones you love, can change in a non-Christian manner with or without government intervention. Also, you forget that &amp;quot;liberalism&amp;quot; was originally a term for the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers and not support for welfare programs - most countries still call the Right &amp;quot;liberal democrats&amp;quot; and the Left &amp;quot;social democrats&amp;quot;. If you define &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot; as not being open to change, you are leaving out plenty on the Right who are. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:24, 14 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My argument isn't necessarily to target any groups but individual's philosophies that are liberal and conservative. I'm simply saying that bias is antithetical to keeping an open mind. - I think that conservativism gets a bad name because of websites like this. There is a small group within the conservative demographic that agrees with everything on here. But to label this site as &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot; gives all the rest of the people in America who consider themselves conservative a bad name. That conservapedia bible project... really?? rewriting the bible to fit an ideology is ridiculous at the least. I can go on and on. This site has its work cut out for it.  And to reply to AddisonDM, the positive output christianity had equaled the negative input it added to other groups. Modern secularism is opening people's minds to more realistic and less superstitious ideas. We are making decisions based on rationality and not on religion. Christianity had bad affects just like atheism has bad affects. Christianity changed paganism forever and rationality will change christianity forever. Its the evolution of human society. ---Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, I urge you to get out more.  There are twice as many &amp;quot;[[conservative]]s&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;[[liberal]]s&amp;quot;, and in the latter category are many people who are obvious hucksters, like [[Al Gore]], or people who don't say anything meaningful, like [[Barack Obama]], or people who refuse to open their mind.  Realize that conservatives give to charity at a higher rate than liberals, and the next time you or a loved one benefits from that charity, thank a conservative and open your mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree with Andy here, the only people who view conservatives in a bad light are liberals.  I am not concerned that a (small and getting smaller) group who have rejected all logic would wish to give my conservatism a bad name.  [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 14:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, there are a variety of people on Conservapedia, but I do agree that it is much more populated by the Religious Right. (I always recommend people looking for information favorable to creationism here.) Most liberals I know are permanently stuck with the false stereotype you are trying to hide, and no matter what you tell them, there is no way in their minds for conservatives to be charitable, color-blind, intelligent, educated, not from the South or not a Bible Christian. For example, according to a liberal, if you are Republican, you don't care about the poor, and you cannot possibly care about helping the poor if you are a Republican. As for the Conservative Bible Project, I too am not a fan - I have seen stuff I don't like, and personally I feel that having fiery King James alongside a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; TEV or NIV solves the archaic language issue perfectly. But I keep quiet, and there's so much else here which I as a Catholic conservative am perfectly comfortable with, and I'm sure atheist/agnostic conservatives such as yourself can find something you'll enjoy here too. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoy coming here for a good laugh and to point out ridiculousness and contradiction. I watch FOX news for the same thing. I am not alligning with any party and I see the good and the bad of being conservative or liberal. Classical liberalism is about personal freedom and promotes that government protect an individual's pursuit of happiness under the law.  classical conservatism is about using government control to promote virtue or a certain morality, and that government comes from God. Liberalism spawned the scientific method that works according to our sense of logic and is always improving. Conservatism in America is too focused on moral purity based on a God that they can't even prove exists. Their attempts at proof are subjective in nature and anything they find that is objective does not match up with the scientific method. Then because It doesn't work with the method, they blame it humanities lack to perceive God because of our shortcomings, or blames it on a Liberal conspiracy. However, they forget that human perception has formed their definition of God anyways. Contradiction and denial of logic- mostly endorsed by the conservative media.  That is why conservatives have gained a bad name. And Shlafly, you should open your mind and &amp;quot;get out more&amp;quot;- like out of your basement in New Jersey before you insult my intelligence like that again. Also, you haven't shown that you have an open mind. I am trying to have an honest debate.-Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, the laughter is against you, Nonobu.  You're wrong on several key points.  The first point is that their is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism; the classical version espoused liberty and liberality, and made it a point of ''giving'' rather than ''taking''.  Modern liberalism - and anyone can see it for themselves in the media - has turned ''taking'' into a necessity and, through use of the government, merged taking with ''stealing''.  You may be correct in asserting that liberals have come up with the [[Scientific method]], but it's use today has been thrown out the window ''by liberals themselves'', as the [[Climategate]] emails have proven to the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:The second point is the fact that you are wrong on conservatives.  &amp;quot;Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day&amp;quot; is liberalism; &amp;quot;teach a man to fish and you feed him for life&amp;quot; is conservatism.  Which is more in the essence of giving?  Liberals feel good about giving a homeless man a shopping cart; conservatives feel good about getting the homeless man away from the cart, into a job, and into a home with the personal responsibility attached.  And you say we deny logic?&lt;br /&gt;
:The third point is look at liberal attacks on God and the Bible.  It isn't conservatives doing it.  The moral standard that we follow is rooted in the Bible; the moral standard of this country's founding is in the Bible; the majority of the Founding Fathers believed in the God of the Bible, and today's liberals - by tossing out the Bible - pretend that they are better than Washington or Jefferson or Hamilton?  By removing Ten Commandments markers from public squares, are liberals saying that their view is better?  If so, then go out and kill someone.  Rob a bank.  Spit on your mother.  Rape someone's wife.  Break all of the commandments in addition to the lying that you displayed here.  Let's see how far you get, because if liberalism is better, then you should be able to get away with murder and stealing and adultery and all the rest.&lt;br /&gt;
:Face it, Nonobu, the country has shown through the TEA Parties and the Massachusetts election that they are fed up with the deceit that is liberalism.  It is high time that you wake your sorry butt up and see what it really is, because in the end there will be accountability.  The God that ''you deny exists'' will make you stand before Him and He will judge you accordingly.  You know full well how to change that.  The choice is your's.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 21 January 2010 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F&amp;diff=805863</id>
		<title>Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F&amp;diff=805863"/>
		<updated>2010-08-15T17:11:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Necessary==&lt;br /&gt;
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating &amp;quot;fighting for ones values&amp;quot;. Where can we reconcile violence with &amp;quot;love one another&amp;quot;? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the dumbest thing i have ever read.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Good==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without  cause other than religios orientation is sin. The  Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are     fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted &amp;quot;Love thy neighbor as thy self.&amp;quot; That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reply:  There haven't been any credible sources that state that Christian pilgrims were killed or harassed in the Holy Land.  If there was some killing, it was greatly exagerated by Pope Urban III at the Council of Clermont&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful.  As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils.  But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight.  When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre.  We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful.  The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful.  I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war.  Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal.  The Crusades were good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly&lt;br /&gt;
:*Mr. Schlafly, if you are not familiar, the crusades were not uniformly good. The fourth crusade was not an attempt to recapture the holy land, but instead was a profitable and disgraceful act in which Pope Innocent III ordered the peasants to Constantinople. The out-of-control Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling and stealing all they could lay hands on- nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. For further reading please see: Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, intro., xiii. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong.  If you believe that all wars are sinful.  Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all.  If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would  stop them by force or would you watch them get killed.  This is the same thing with a war on a national level.  Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation.  The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died.  The Ten Comandments says &amp;quot;Thy Shalt Not Kill&amp;quot;, but are you not killing when you refuse to  defend the defenseless?  For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed.  I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist.  Deborah G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---&lt;br /&gt;
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. --- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends &amp;amp; family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe&lt;br /&gt;
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades.  The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe.  Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways.  I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question for above statement- How did the Crusades expose Western Europe to science and technology? From what I remember, the Rennaisance really started to kick in around the late 1300's and early 1400's, the same time that Greek-Orthodox scientists, scholars, and artists were fleeing the Turkish onslought. Nobodies ever heard of El Greco? Born as Greek-Orthodox in Crete and famous Rennaisance painter who introduced new styles? Imagine who he inspired and taught, and spread rennaisance tradition, all thanks to the Turkish onslought and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims &amp;quot;Mohammedans&amp;quot;?  We don't call Americans &amp;quot;Washingtonans&amp;quot; or Jewish people &amp;quot;Abrahamans&amp;quot;.  I'm not saying the term &amp;quot;Mohammedan&amp;quot; is necessarily incorrect.  It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West.  But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term &amp;quot;Mohammedan&amp;quot; because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term &amp;quot;moslem&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;muslim&amp;quot; to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force.  However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today).  These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status.  Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations.  The rise of Islam disrupted this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The first four Crusades were an attempt to &amp;quot;roll back&amp;quot; the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide.  Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists.  By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed.  Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east.  Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it.  It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations.  So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years.  This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please could you provide your sources for the &amp;quot;disruption of trade&amp;quot; leading to economic problems in Western Europe?   My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -&amp;gt; Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It was bad because it was bloody? All wars are bloody. I suggest that you give us some more substantive reasons, and put them under &amp;quot;Bad&amp;quot;. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I&amp;quot;m not saying it was bad because it was bloody - I'm saying it was bad because of the horrible atrocities based on race. It was in effect a genocide (The sack of Jerusalem, that is) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves.  like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. &amp;quot;live and let live&amp;quot; seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that &amp;quot;dont care/believe about religion/god&amp;quot; does not equal &amp;quot;im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag&amp;quot; and leave me out of  the quarrel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, to summarize thoughts...&lt;br /&gt;
Thry needed to retake the land, also Pope wanted to show dignity, they needed Christian world(?)and land, Muslims were&lt;br /&gt;
first to kill pilgrims, so crusades were good.. 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bad==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Billy M.=)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem.  Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages.  Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction.  The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed.  There is no justification for the crusades as a &amp;quot;Holy War.&amp;quot;  Christianity is not a violent religion.  We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians.  A Country has a right to control who comes into that country.  The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem.  This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there.  If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we?  There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries.  Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war.  The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war.  He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died.  Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baaad!!!!!!!&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright.  There were economic factors at work.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an &amp;quot;economic factor&amp;quot;.   [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade.  As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other.  As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc.  But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals.  AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge.  Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher.  Not all animals are scavangers.  As Moses said, &amp;quot;ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean.&amp;quot;  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comment==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thou shalt not kill.  It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out.  It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==BAAAAAD!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, they were the [[Moors]]. I agree with you, but it does your argument a disservice. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:41, 8 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why does this topic even exist?  Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on.  Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected.  Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I get it.  When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says &amp;quot;convert or die,&amp;quot; you're supposed to convert.  Duh.  Why didn't I think of that?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land.  There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time.  Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long.  [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today.  Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm.....  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right.  War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;, and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves?  Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully.  Bowing to a king and calling senators &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;?  How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators &amp;quot;Senator&amp;quot;?  I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.&lt;br /&gt;
by 1718&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The greed of the few outweighs the needs of the many ~ Anonymous&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;What you do to the least of these, you do unto me&amp;quot;.... I'd say a lot of crusaders did a lot of harm to &amp;quot;the least of those&amp;quot; they came across.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==TRAGIC==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can not say in my opinion that the Crusades were good or bad. I think they were both, and neither. I find it more fitting to label them as tragic. It is my belief that they should not have been carried out, or at the very least they should have been conducted differently, especially the later ones. However, the fact that they were carried out, then it is my belief that things would have been better had they been ultimately successful. That the West (and do not go deluding yourselves this was a religious thing, it was not, it was a political and cultural thing, religion was used to spur on the zealots on both sides...) should have retained the Holy Land, that the world would have been better for it, if we were to use today's world as a reference point (but then hindsight is always 20/20). The The powers that be bhind he Crusades should have left the Jews alone, and sacking Constantinople was absolute lunacy. But again, it was a different time, and you couldn't expect more from the common christian of that era to be hateful and virulent towards the &amp;quot;killers of Christ&amp;quot; nor could you expect any Pope of that era to abide any collusion or otherwise beneficial relations with &amp;quot;schismatics.&amp;quot; So in a word, the whole affair was tragic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similiar inquiries within Islamic venues would most likely involve a &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; over the merits of Jihad.  To which right wing Americans would gasp, even when this other &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; is essentially the same.  -JBall&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=801787</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=801787"/>
		<updated>2010-08-06T21:23:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is between his first and second year of college, studying nursing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User ClintonFan}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User antigun}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User nowar}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User no death penalty}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Can_conservapedia_become_the_next_Wikipedia,_is_this_good_or_bad&amp;diff=792067</id>
		<title>Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Can_conservapedia_become_the_next_Wikipedia,_is_this_good_or_bad&amp;diff=792067"/>
		<updated>2010-07-01T16:03:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
::&lt;br /&gt;
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument.  When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers.  There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial.  When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama.  It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim.  It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale.  The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact.  I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.&lt;br /&gt;
::&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi&lt;br /&gt;
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia.  Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought.  As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential.  We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles.  Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well.  While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time.  While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded.  Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation.  Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate.  With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What Wikipedia should've been? As is stated above, Cp merely makes a bias in the opposite direction from Wp. Also, I've never seen a truly strong bias on Wikipedia, while on here, I've seen: Atheism and Deception, Atheism and Mental Health, Atheism and Charity, Atheism and Mass Murder, Atheism and Suicide, etc. In other words, Conservapedia goes out of their way to bash Atheism, while Christianity is all &amp;quot;fine and dandy&amp;quot;. In other words, unless Cp has a complete change of heart, it can never become the next Wikipedia. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]] 21:31, 11 July 2009 (EDT)KnightOfTheNight&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Freethough13: ( i hope the name doesn't get me kicked off). if i may,&lt;br /&gt;
it would be a tragic loss. i'm not argueing that wikipedia is liberal (which there is a reason. liberals are consiterably more likly to use the internet. ergo, they/i must at at least one time have a shift one way or another. the supposide liberalness of wikipedia is simply an effect, not an intentional fault itself. i back this off of me testing the theory of a liberal wikipedia. when i put in &amp;quot;Bush Sucks&amp;quot; on the Republican party, hell, even backed it up with sources, it blocked me.), but simply because of the outright, obveouse, pround, and incresingly strong right-wing bias. at least wikipedia has a less stringent intention of holding one political line or another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree with the unbiased truth.  However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased.  For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that &amp;quot;Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses,&amp;quot; which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend.  Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized.  Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool. &lt;br /&gt;
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed &amp;quot;invented&amp;quot; by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him?  Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think this site should be as big as Wikipedia, since it's simply a free online resource. No gimmicks. I'm a British atheist, and I'm not here to critize the idea behind this site. It's what makes the internet so wonderful: different opinions. However, this site is dangerously on the verge of becoming another parody of convervatist christians. You, the users, are blantantly making this site hostile to anyone with a different ideal, how will it ever grow or be taken seriously? Not everyone will agree, I don't, I personally think it's extremely homophobic, racist, elitist, sexist, shows bias and mispresents facts, but that's one opinion. In order to grow as an idea, embrace other ideals, no-ones asking you to stop being tories. But just lashing back with anti-foreign, hypocritcal retotrts is what makes me and everyone else dislike your ideas. Don't be like that. Embrace, isn't that what Jesus would do? Don't dare force ideals on anyone. Chris Roberts/chrisroberts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as &amp;quot;paper&amp;quot; barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text.  Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia.  Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper.  It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe.  This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear.  For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it.  So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This place can't be the next Wikipedia.  Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS.   --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is &amp;quot;If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain.&amp;quot; Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger.  -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can CP become as big as Wiki?  Certainly.  But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces.  This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention.  NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth.  The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...!   [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78&lt;br /&gt;
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a &amp;quot;Liberellapedia&amp;quot; to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of &amp;quot;honesty and fair-play&amp;quot; in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:&lt;br /&gt;
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.&lt;br /&gt;
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.&lt;br /&gt;
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy. &lt;br /&gt;
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.&lt;br /&gt;
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!&lt;br /&gt;
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same. &lt;br /&gt;
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth.  We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else.  You won't be fooling anyone here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it.  The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship.  If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand what you mean by &amp;quot;becoming a liberal wiki&amp;quot;. CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that &amp;quot;CE&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; is necessary &amp;quot;in order to gain academic credibility&amp;quot; is absurd.  Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you.  Pursue your quest to spread &amp;quot;CE&amp;quot; (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here.  &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history.  CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)?  That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint.  Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: So how many people in the world use the Jewish calendar? Listen, if AD and BC offended the Islamic world, use of the Jewish calendar would be viewed as a virtual decleration of war upon Islam; you know how they hate Israel. If you, like a typical Liberal, are ignorant of current affairs in the Middle East, blinkered to facts by your obsession with tolerance and multiculturalism. The use of CE is similar to those who thought that a new language could be taught all around the world, in the name of goodwill and understanding and rainbows and etc. Why should a new language be created and taught when many people already speak English or Spanish or Chinese? Why not teach one of those instead of making up a foolish new one 'to prevent offense'? It's the same with CE; why make a new system when the world already has some it's comfortable with in the name of so-called 'tolernace'. It's just liberals making up problems again. With any luck, CE will fail as terribly as those artificial languages did too. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CE has academic credibility; it's just not a necessary change, especially for American authors. Our audience is not academics, so we don't have to use their [[date formats]]. In years to come, we can make the change if our relationship to academia warrants it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*(haven't read all the above posts...pardon the certain faux-pas's that I now make) Unless something seriously changes with the way the leadership of wikipedia forms it's relationships, I don't see how that place is going to keep going.  [[Jimbo Wales]] figuratively and literally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark jumped the shark] when he allowed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2 User:FT2] to be a member of its &amp;quot;arbcom,&amp;quot; or arbitration committee.  When legitimate concerns were raised about FT2 personal interests--however untactful and poorly chosen the phrase &amp;quot;dog lover&amp;quot; may be--these were ignored and the editor was blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=255290603].  It's only now come to light because of a possible procedural/process violation, which is apparently no laughing matter over there. Maybe I'm still too much of a country mouse--no pun intended--but I can't see how anyone could support leadership who given full knowledge and evidence of moral bankruptcy, nevertheless, sees no reason to be far more careful with his relations or those of his organization. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's interesting to see the comments above.  One of the biggest things that I would change is to adapt a more neutral stance on the topics.  This is a big thing.  &lt;br /&gt;
* As to the suffix AD or CE, I was taught to use AD.  So for me it's easier to use.  I prefer AD to CE because, as someone said it above, it worked for 2000 years.  &lt;br /&gt;
* As to whether or not this site can become as big or bigger than Wikipedia; I am a college student and my instructors told my class that using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed.  I find this interesting.  I've run across numerous articles that don't list a source or another place to find the information.  &lt;br /&gt;
* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited.  Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem.  And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources.  &lt;br /&gt;
* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject.  You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better.  While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.&lt;br /&gt;
*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics.  I've run across several severely biased articles on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic.  Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy).  I go there because this information is in one place.  It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site.  For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies.  While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research.  Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics.  How will I know if it's not listed?&lt;br /&gt;
* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people.  I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner.  This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed.  This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics.  If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page.  Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias?  Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe.  He does an excellent job.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Summary... If you can present both sides of the topic in an intelligent manner with several citations, people will be more apt to use this site.  Otherwise it will become a haven for extremists and fall off the map of every day people with conservative views.--[[User:KevinSSr|KevinSSr]] 22:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==View from a longtime Wikipedian==&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia succeeded because of three things, one of which Conservapedia possesses, the other two of which it ''could'' easily possess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A dedicated body of core editors&lt;br /&gt;
* Open editing&lt;br /&gt;
* Open content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia already has a quite sizeable body of people who edit daily on a diverse range of subjects.  This means that there is something to read on Conservapedia and the content grows as time goes on, and there is a sense of community about Conservapedia.  Having some of the most experienced Wikipedians, like Ed Poor, around the place can only help in this regard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But one thing that is missing is open editing.  It is this aspect of Wiki editing that Wikipedia successfully imported (with significant modifications) from traditional &amp;quot;Meatball-style&amp;quot; wikis, which means Wikipedia's rate of growth took off and its use became viral.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the moment on Conservapedia editing is closed, in the sense that if you discover an error or omission in an article, then you have to make an effort to register an account just to make a little tweak, add some new content, or even make a comment on the talk page about something that needs attention.  It is impossible to overstate how costly that is for an encyclopedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, Conservapedia doesn't want to repeat the complete openness of Wikipedia, perhaps because of a perception that it would tend to fill up with trivia the way so many Wikipedia articles do, perhaps because of a feeling that this would invite vandals to trash the content, and perhaps because of a feeling that letting everybody edit every article would tend to dilute the political focus or even end up with what the Conservapedia community perceives to be a liberal bias in Wikipedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But putting people through that routine just to make an edit is costly.  In May, 2008, just over 1100 people took the trouble to create an account.  About the same number created new accounts in October.  That's not bad, but remember that accounts for every single edit by a new editor in each of those months.  Worse, a good proportion of new editors never even get as far as editing.  For whatever reason (perhaps they only wanted to be able to set preferences) they never got to the point of editing an article, so the number of first edits by new editors is probably less than 1000 per month, or about 30 per day.  Spread across the articles that is a really tiny number of edits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of those who do edit only make one or two edits but that doesn't matter.  The point is that they saw something that needed fixing and they fixed it.  With open editing you'd get many more edits, and that would bring new content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a myth, sometimes encouraged by Jimbo Wales, that most of Wikipedia is built by just a few editors.  That's wrong.  Most ''featured articles'' are written substantially by a tiny subset of the tiny subset of people who come to Wikipedia and edit regularly--the community.  After nearly eight years there are less than 2400 featured articles, and that accounts for less than one-tenth of one per cent of all Wikipedia articles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually there is evidence that ''most'' Wikipedia content seems to come from those so-called &amp;quot;anonymous IPs&amp;quot; that are so often denigrated as mere vandals by the regular users.  See [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia this blog piece] by Aaron Swartz.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits.  You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism.  It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why.  Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it.  You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license.  It's a great way to get a lot of basically good content and bring it up to your own standard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor.  --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable educational resource.  I find it to be a a gossip tree, a smear machine, and a trivia database.  None of that is educational in a meaningful sense.  Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path.  We teach teenagers and adults.  Hundreds and thousands of them.  We learn ourselves in the process.  Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed.  I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I think some of your criticisms of Wikipedia are valid (the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticisms of Wikipedia] documents most if not all criticisms that have been circulated in the mainstream press).  But on most academic subjects, particularly science, the quality is extremely high, and the articles would be yours to take and modify to correct any imbalance if you adopted an open content policy compatible with their licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Wikipedia does cover popular culture but that's a matter of deliberate policy, not an accidental result of permitting open editing.  As for the notion that Wikipedia performs no educational function, that's unsustainable even on a cursory examination.  Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Zinc&amp;amp;oldid=563001 Conservapedia's] articles on the metal Zinc, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hundred_Years_War&amp;amp;oldid=594609 Conservapedia's] articles on the Hundred Years War.  As for Twelfth Night, the difference between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Night this article] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Twelfth_Night&amp;amp;oldid=456977 this one] could not be more graphic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The notion that having open editing would necessitate low quality just doesn't hold up.  Wikipedia aspires to very stringent quality standards and the results, on the most important articles, is impressive by any measure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I won't venture further to criticise the quality of Conservapedia's content, because I think many of the site's users and admins have already brought this out.  I do think you could do better. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with both of you equally, and I'm not just saying this to be &amp;quot;neutral&amp;quot;. Here at CP we have no &amp;quot;neutrality policy&amp;quot;: the core requirement is for articles to be trustworthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We certainly do need to be able to share insights and advance knowledge. By doing this, we provide the opportunity for the undecided to maintain an open mind. It is only the far left and the far right that hope for the closing of the American mind (with apologies to [[Allen Bloom]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I spent nearly all my spare time helping Wikipedia to grow, because I was learning in the process of helping others to learn. It also provided the basis for the success of the [[New World Encyclopedia]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tony, you are right when you stress the ability of anyone to edit any article any time. That is one of the essential elements that led to Wikipedia's exponential growth. But Andy is also right when he criticizes Wikipedia's viability as an educational resource. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bias of Wikipedia against religion (in general) and against non-leftist ideology (in both politics and science) is just as crippling as having a leg shot off with a cannonball. The anti-elitism, which Larry Sanger pointed out so eloquently, is like having the other leg cut off with a sword. Forgive the violent imagery, but this is a debate page, so I figure I'm entitled to a little slack, eh?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tony, you are also right when you say that Wikipedia has acknowledged most of the criticisms. This is crucially important, as it will determine when and if Wikipedia can ever reform. Wikipedia took a big hit when the arbcom decided to brand me a &amp;quot;tendentious&amp;quot; editor, when all I was doing was correcting violations of NPOV policy. I could have appealed to Jimbo, but I chose not to. Now, I'm not saying I'm a particularly important person; I'm more like a &amp;quot;poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage&amp;quot;. But it was the Principle which they violated. Instead of thanking the revealer, they condemned him. (Once again, remember that this is not about me: I am not claiming to be a martyr. I'm fine.) They repeated the mistake of the Greeks who condemned Socrates. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but &amp;quot;most&amp;quot; means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as &amp;quot;methodological naturalism&amp;quot;) fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter of what Wikipedia itself calls &amp;quot;tag team editing&amp;quot;. Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the &amp;quot;undue weight&amp;quot; policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, I'm glad you're here and that you have (apparently) forgiven our initial lack of welcome. I look forward to more conversations with you about how CP and/or WP can improve. And bring your friends! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 06:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Taking your complaint about a &amp;quot;liberal filter&amp;quot; operating on Wikipedia, well if you think about it that gives a counter-argument to the notion that open editing leads to anarchy.  Your experience is that a policy you disagree with (due weight), and editing practices you don't like (&amp;quot;tag teaming&amp;quot;--which incidentally is ''not'' considered to be a problem by Wikipedia's policies) has led to an outcome you think reflects badly on Wikipedia.  This demonstrates that open editing is a relatively weak force in the presence of strong motivation and policy.  It introduces diversity, but not (in the case of Wikipedia's science coverage, at least) at the expense of control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: And of course I don't want to see Conservapedia become like Wikipedia. I don't think open editing and open content would make Conservapedia Wikipedia, because its policies and focus are fundamentally different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We could argue about the quality of science coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't really want to hijack this page for that side issue.  Suffice to say that an analysis published in ''Nature'' found the quality of the science coverage on Wikipedia (including the article on global warming) to be comparable to that of Britannia.  The notion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Wikipedia's coverage of global warming] is anomalous can be exploded by a cursory examination of [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/global_warming.html Encarta's article on the subject], and [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming Britannica's].  There are subtle differences of emphasis in all three articles, but they all reflect the IPCC consensus and all provide a good introduction to the subject.  --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 09:45, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Tony. You have given me food for thought. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:51, 7 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tony, you're right about one thing: the &amp;quot;policies and focus&amp;quot; of Conservapedia and Wikipedia &amp;quot;are fundamentally different.&amp;quot;  Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, is not a legitimate or helpful educational resource.  It is a mixture of gossip, trivia, and [[censorship]] by atheists.  I'd guess that you're an undisclosed atheist who is typical of the editors who dominate Wikipedia.  Most of us wouldn't send our children to an atheistic school, and for same reason most of us have abandoned Wikipedia for any real learning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feel free to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia in five years.  All atheistic countries and organizations unravel, or worse.  It will be like comparing the atheistic former East Germany to the United States.  It won't be a pretty comparison for Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I think we've all aired our opinions.  Thanks to Ed and Andy for that.  But Andy, you raise a personal matter concerning my religious beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm only an &amp;quot;undisclosed&amp;quot; atheist in the sense that I don't mention my religious beliefs (or lack of same) except where it's relevant.  I sent my children to a regular English school where religion was an integral part of the curriculum.  School events such as musical concerts were held across the road in a beautiful Congregationalist church, the [[Union Chapel, Islington]].  I'll write an article about that edifice.  I don't know whether you'd consider such a school &amp;quot;atheistic&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Likewise I don't think Wikipedia is atheistic so much as secular, as is the government of the United States (and I don't think either is in imminent danger of collapse).  You will find [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Hinduism|Hindus]], [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Islam|Muslims]], [[Judaism|Jews]], [[Wicca|Wiccans]], and people who like myself don't have any religious beliefs, working alongside one another in Wikipedia as in the US government.  I don't think it's at all correct to describe such [[pluralism]] as &amp;quot;atheistic&amp;quot;. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 13:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Tony, of course an atheist is going to like an atheistic resource like Wikipedia, and even argue that it is unbiased.  Republicans think that George Bush has been a good and fair president, and Democrats tent to think that Barack Obama will be a good and fair president.  No surprise, obviously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: But you didn't disclose your point of view until I elicited it.  And that is a basic problem with Wikipedia.  Its key entries are mostly controlled by atheists without admitting it.  No meaningful criticism of the theory of evolution, for example, will ever be allowed by the atheists on Wikipedia.  No explanation of how atheists censor prayer in the classroom will ever be presented.  The undisclosed bias permeates many key entries on Wikipedia and renders it unusable as an objective learning source.  If the bias were disclosed, then it would be more useful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: My point of view shouldn't matter in this discussion if my arguments are sound.  You will find a neutral discussion of the process by which mandatory prayer, once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the Establishment Clause, in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer Wikipedia article on School Prayer].  None of the key cases involved atheists as parties (with the exception of the case ''Murray v. Curlett'' which was consolidated with a case involving a [[Unitarian]], ''Abington School District v. Schempp'' (1963)).  All of them involved conflicts on religious observance between adherents of different, mostly Christian, religious sects.  --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Tony, [[atheism]] certainly does slant one's opinions.  You can't even discuss the [[theory of evolution]] in an objective manner, because you'll desperately insist that it ''must'' somehow be true no matter what the evidence is.  You and your fellow Wikipedians will censor all meaningful criticism of the theory.  Ditto for prayer in the classroom:  atheists insist on censoring, and deny that is what they are doing.  The biased Wikipedia entry, which itself admits it lacks quality, does not use the word &amp;quot;censor&amp;quot; once and is permeated with distortions and falsehoods, thanks to the atheists who insist that Wikipedia represent their point of view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I'm not trying to persuade you.  I am telling you that the majority of the world, and the vast majority of productive people, do not want an atheistic teaching source, which is what Wikipedia is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) On some points, I see us talking past each other. Two religious issues raised include the distinction between atheistic and secular outlooks, and the distinction between mandatory and optional prayer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Andy is right about atheism taking hold at Wikipedia, which was co-founded by two atheists: [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]]. At first, they agreed that Wikipedia would be neutral on all religious questions including the existence of God and the ability of supernatural forces/beings to influence the physical world. Somehow that changed, and the &amp;quot;secular&amp;quot; perspective of Wikipedia's articles on issues crucial to the 40% to 85% of Americans who have disagreements with [[Evolution]] has trumped NPOV. The naturalism and materialism of [[physical science]] is taken as a given, rather than made explicit. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a minor point, I noticed that Andy said ''atheists censor prayer in the classroom'' while Tony replied with a reminder that &amp;quot;[[mandatory prayer]], once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the [[Establishment Clause]]&amp;quot;. Tony, did you know that Andy is a lawyer? He's probably familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about religious issues. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Truth is not a poll. Conservapedia has a conservative view, yes, but it is in truth. Wikipedia accepts evolution as truth, and in that view it exalts everything that agrees with that view, and disagrees with any counter view. As far as Obama, they are questions that need to be answered, that obviously the liberal side would rather cover and ignore. Here is a challenge, go to You Tube and in the search put Barack Obama, and on the list that comes up, rate how many positive videos come up, and how many negative on the first page. Now do the same with Sarah Palin. Notice how the rate of positive versus negative viewpoints change with her.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So to find the TRUTH, it is not about being all inclusive or being politically correct. There is no such thing as objective news anymore because the world has become split on God vs No God, so the correct thing to do is become the best God believing information center in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Put another way, if someone wants to wander in confusion amid the self-serving lies promoted by atheists, they go to Wikipedia.  I think studies show that atheism makes one less charitable and more depressed; [[Nietzsche]], the leading atheist of the 19th century, went crazy.  If someone wants the truth and the freedom and [[faith]] that brings, they come here.  Ultimately, each person decides for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I would agree&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, it cannot.  CP's ideological bias is deliberate and overt, as opposed to Wikipedia's emergent, incidental bias, which undermines the average reader's confidence in CP's information.  Wikipedia may be editable by anyone, but CP is guaranteed to contain information that advances a conservative agenda.  If there existed a Liberalpedia, it would be just as untrustworthy, but Wikipedia is not such a being.  On the day it institutes a &amp;quot;Conservative Tricks&amp;quot; page, we'll talk. -- [[User:Osiris1723|Osiris1723]] 00:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Incidental bias, what a lovely word. Maybe you would think different if you read http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia  They have the most pages on the internet, clap clap clap. I truly believe they have the most anti-God pages as well. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Likeminded people who agree with Osirus1723,  where is the external link section of Wikipedia's Criticism of atheism article located here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism  Why don't you test your hypothesis that the ideological bias at Wikipedia is incidental?   Test it as soon as you read this message by adding a external link section to the Wikipedia criticism of atheism article located here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: While, I would agree that there is some bias in Wikipedia, for a number of reasons, I would like to point out that there ''are'' external links on the article you posted.  They're in the reference section, including [http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm this link to a Catholic site], [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html this article from the Christian Science Monitor], and [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=44990 this debate between the author of an extreme atheist book and a theologian at Christianity Today]. I think that the existence of the article itself is at least an attempt to have genuine neutrality on Wikipedia, even if it isn't perfect. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 12:03, 1 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movement toward being as big as Wikipedia will be a tough road. We must follow Ezekiel 2:23 because the way it is written tells us how we can become great and rise above. The downfall of this site will be the sins of homosexuals in their quest to &amp;quot;gay&amp;quot; up the internet. We must work to keep this page solely conservative and keep it to inform the masses the right way, and be better than Liberal Wikipedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I agree with the original poster.  This site is going in the opposite direction by applying conservative bias where Wikipedia applies liberal bias.  I also disagree with the decision to avoid rules about how to edit.  Wikipedia's rules are actually pretty sensible, use a neutral point of view (which does not mean no POV, merely using neutral wording), consensus (which is supposed to involve reasons based on other guidelines, not just a matter of unreasoned, unbased disagreement with an edit - which unfortunately happens on Wikipedia), and no original research (meaning everything is to be backed up, and views given prominence based solely on sourcing).  It's actually a good set of rules.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem is there's no accountability for admins who don't follow them.  What Wikipedia really needs to do is set forth which rules are permissible as an objection to an edit, and require that those who don't provide solid reasoning from this can't be considered as part of the consensus.  As Andrew Schafly has said, the result is that Wikipedia can end up acting like a lynch mob.  There also needs to be a specific commission just for investigating situations where consensus is occurring without reason.  Without that, there's no accountability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, I think Conservapedia can become as big as Wikipedia.  However, it must seek to start being objective.  That can still mean presenting conservative criticisms, but try to present them in order of relevance, meaning directly correlated to their number of reliable sources, and if presented at all otherwise, stick them in a &amp;quot;Minor Controversies&amp;quot; section at the bottom of a page.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservapedia must first make its main articles objective and seek to discipline users who shout down others when they are providing well-sourced or reasonable objections.  The community must be made fair, in other words, as well as accessible.  The Barack Obama article in particular needs a top-down rewriting.  After this is done, seek to reform Conservapedia's image as an objective source of information, and a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.  Perhaps search engines like Yahoo might be willing to work a deal with Conservapedia so Conservapedia results are shown higher, just as Google did with Wikipedia.  However, such a deal would never be considered until Conservapedia makes articles more objective and attracts enough editors to expand its number of pages with quality material.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be a long road taking at least 5-10 years for this to even begin.  I am willing to help, but want to see Conservapedia begin changing its primary articles and its level of objectivity first.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 09:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I believe CP can eventually grow to be very large, I don't think it will surpass Wikipedia because we, unlike them, support the '''truth''' which certainly does not masquerade as neutrality. Many people are sucked in to Wikipedia by the claim that it is neutral, mostly pseudo - intellectuals who will only further its [[liberal bias]]. We can, however, surpass Wikipedia in the search results as we already have done with many pages. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:33, 29 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_Giving_Birth_the_Bible_Way_Better%3F&amp;diff=790928</id>
		<title>Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_Giving_Birth_the_Bible_Way_Better%3F&amp;diff=790928"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:45:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm BIRTH THE BIBLE WAY] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can anyone read German and are they interested in relaying the info in the citation below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The German journal Der Spiegel had a report on the mother’s best position for giving birth.(1986, Number 43, 278-288)&amp;quot;[http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBirth100.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:...the much more interesting problem would be to obtain a copy of an article from an issue that's just a few years younger than I am. Oh, wait, checking with the online archive makes me guess it's this one: [http://service.spiegel.de/digas/find?DID=13521283 Costs 50 cents to buy.] Judging by the title, it's a discussion/debate between a gynecologist and an... ethno-doctor? Not sure how that term translates. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Ethno-doctor,&amp;quot; as you so aptly put it - think &amp;quot;ethnographer&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;anthropologist.&amp;quot; [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 21:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Possible - I have absolutely no idea about the terminology in that field. *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no bible way to give birth[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Even if you consider a seated position the &amp;quot;Biblical&amp;quot; way to give birth, then you have to trace this practice back even further.  There are inscriptions in Egyptian temples that show women giving birth in a seated position.  Since the Egyptian practice predates the Bible by thousands of years, this means the Egyptians must be correct.  Hail Ra! [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 12:47, 20 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of an odd thing to talk about in this context, but from a biological standpoint, the 'Biblical' way of giving birth actually is better because it allows gravity to pull down on the baby while it is being born.  Women giving birth laying on their backs actually have more difficulty for that reason, hence why many ancient civilizations (including the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Hebrews, some of the earliest civilizations on Earth) used seated birth methods or something similar.  It's not a religious requirement, but medically, it's probably better for the mother and the baby (because of the shorter time spent in the birth canal and lower stress as a result of that). [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:45, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_our_freedom_to_consume_what_we_want_whenever_we_want_worth_the_cost_(i.e._environmental,_social,_economic,_etc.)%3F&amp;diff=790926</id>
		<title>Debate: Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_our_freedom_to_consume_what_we_want_whenever_we_want_worth_the_cost_(i.e._environmental,_social,_economic,_etc.)%3F&amp;diff=790926"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:38:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''PLEASE THOROUGHLY EXPLAIN ALL ENTRIES AND IDEAS.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NO'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be the first, then, to suggest that this is our only planet. We simply cannot sustain life elsewhere. Since it's only been around for 6,000 years, I believe we cannot state for certain the extent of life on other planets, but that it is extremely unlikely. God chose us for this planet and created the environment to sustain life. It is our duty, therefore, to respect His wishes and maintain it as best we can, even if that means cutting back on our own consumption and becoming conscious of the effects of this consumption. [[User:ColinS|ColinS]] 22:50, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your point is well taken, and you're welcome to it.  But do you think in environmentalism there is an implicit message that there will be a long future to Earth?  Much debate occurs about how old Earth is, but there is also an implicit theme to environmentalism that [[God]] cannot end things soon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I am thoroughly not an environmentalist, however I am ecologically conscious, and I would argue a difference. That said, I do think God would appreciate our caring of the planet more than our endless need for consumption. I would rather the planet exist for longer, even if God has the power to cut it short instantly. [[User:ColinS|ColinS]] 17:49, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Consumption&amp;quot; runs the gamut from life-promoting energy use to unjustifiable destruction of the environment.  Since virtually everyone opposes senseless waste, the real debate is about energy use, and I favor it because it extends lives and saves lives.  I suggest those opposed to energy consumption and use try living in some of the nations that have less per-capita energy, and seeing how life is shorter there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm new here, but I happened to notice this debate. I suggest you check out [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE this webpage], Professor Schlafly. The statistical correlation of per capita energy use doesn't really support your statement. My home country of Switzerland has a slightly better life expectancy as the USA (compare with the life expectancy data [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN here]), but half the per capita energy. And the countries with the highest energy use are in the Middle East, where life expectancy isn't as good as in the USA and Europe. [[User:HenryClerval|HenryClerval]] 18:15, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have looked at the statistics and found that life expectancy does not correlate to energy consumption. Japan's life expectancy is the highest in the world — about 4 years longer than the USA's — and consumes about half the energy per capita. The UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and other predominantly European countries consume far less energy than the United States, yet have significantly longer life expectancies. Furthermore, countries which consume more energy per capita than the USA (UAE, Qatar and Bahrain, to name a few) do not have longer life expectancy. I have excluded countries such as those in third-world Africa because their energy consumption is among the least of their worries (I'd suspect lack of availability of medicine and sterile hospitals rank as greater indicators of life expectancy). [http://earthtrends.wri.org/ Source] [[User:ColinS|ColinS]] 18:24, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It seems we were writing at the same time, user ColinS! [[User:HenryClerval|HenryClerval]] 18:29, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that we need to protect our planet, because we don't really know how much time we have here.  The end of the world could come tomorrow, or it could come 2,000 years from now.  We need to act on the things we know, and try to protect the world for our children and their children in case they spend the entirety of their lives here.  That means reducing our oil use, trying to find alternative energy sources, and doing whatever we can to preserve our planet. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:38, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''YES'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The benefits of energy production and consumption exceed the costs.  There is a close correlation between average lifespan and energy use, for example.  Are the extra years in life worth the cost?  Yes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extra years in life are only worth the cost when lived fruitfully. For example, if someone is being painfully kept alive by radiation and chemotherapy, then no, those extra years are not worth the cost, monetarily and physically. -MPC, 21:27, 16 May 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could you please further explain your stance on this issue? -MPC, 12:00, 16 May 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Reply to new comment (comment above was changed after thread below formed).  Many would disagree with your statement, but it is beside the point.  More energy means a longer healthy lifespan for the people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:22, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's simple:  the more energy a nation produces and consumes, the longer its average lifespan.  Why?  Because energy production creates wealth that can then improve health-related facilities like hospitals, and energy use provides comfort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nations with such freedom have less poverty and starvation, so yes, it's certainly worth it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:21, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We can be good stewards of the Earth and consume whatever is necessary. Some will argue we are destroying the planet. I say America has spent more than all other nations combined on the environment. Some will argue that the planet will not sustain the increasing population. Yet God said be fruitful and multiply. God never said stop at 12 billion or the planet will be in peril. Can we effect the environment? sure. Is the Earth in dire straits? No.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:37, 16 May 2010 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''POSSIBLY'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correlation does not imply causation. This is, however, a very interesting theory and has given me something to think about. Perhaps more evidence is required? Maybe countries in the Middle East could be closely compared, considering the overall similarities between those countries and the fact that some have oil, while others don't. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:27, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: [[Correlation]] does suggest possible causation, and where, as here, there are reasons to expect causation, then the close correlation is persuasive.  The [[Luddite]]s opposed to energy production and consumption are not building hospitals to extend lifespan.  The short lifespan in energy-deficient nations in Africa could be alleviated quickly with more energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet, how will they create any energy if they have no money to begin with? -MPC, 21:12, 16 May 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh, of course I agree that there is a possible correlation, I only meant we can't conclude causation from correlation alone. If I remember correctly from a history class, Iraq could be an excellent example of this. When Iraq nationalized the oil industry (previously owned by British companies) it was able to use that oil and extra revenue to modernize and provide social services to its citizens that raised the quality of life, infant mortality rates, calorie intake, etc. There's no doubt that the effect would have been far greater if they had chosen to privatize the industry instead, but that certainly indicates a causation. I might have to do some more research on this. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:08, 16 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_waterboarding_torture%3F&amp;diff=790925</id>
		<title>Debate:Is waterboarding torture?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_waterboarding_torture%3F&amp;diff=790925"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:31:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Yes==&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, we need to torture muslims if they bomb us. I support it.&lt;br /&gt;
:Hmm. That makes perfect sense. With that logic, let's torture all of the guys in the USAF because they bomb innocent civilians. Does that make sense? And you just stereotyped 1.6 billion people. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Waterboarding is defined as torture by US law[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html], The UN[http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm] (which also states &amp;quot;No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture&amp;quot;). --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:31, 19 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Waterboarding is definitely torture, and isn't justified or even particularly useful in any situation.  The threat of torture is normally enough to scare people who are ''willing'' to tell the truth into doing so.  If someone thinks that they can withstand torture, they probably can.  They might lie to make it stop, but you're not getting any answers out of them, and all you're going to do is cause illegal harm for no purpose. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:31, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait a minute - 'we need to torture muslims if they bomb us' - you mean you wouldn't torture others who bomb you?  Are you suggesting that Followers of Islam are in some way more deserving of torture?  Other than that, if you advocate the torture of prisoners (be they Prisoners of War in the technical sense or not) then surely you abandon any right to be appalled if other nations/organisations adopt the same tactics with captured Americans..? [[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:34, 14 May 2007 (BST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F&amp;diff=790924</id>
		<title>Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F&amp;diff=790924"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:26:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Necessary==&lt;br /&gt;
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating &amp;quot;fighting for ones values&amp;quot;. Where can we reconcile violence with &amp;quot;love one another&amp;quot;? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the dumbest thing i have ever read.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Good==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without  cause other than religios orientation is sin. The  Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are     fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted &amp;quot;Love thy neighbor as thy self.&amp;quot; That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reply:  There haven't been any credible sources that state that Christian pilgrims were killed or harassed in the Holy Land.  If there was some killing, it was greatly exagerated by Pope Urban III at the Council of Clermont&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful.  As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils.  But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight.  When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre.  We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful.  The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful.  I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war.  Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal.  The Crusades were good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly&lt;br /&gt;
:*Mr. Schlafly, if you are not familiar, the crusades were not uniformly good. The fourth crusade was not an attempt to recapture the holy land, but instead was a profitable and disgraceful act in which Pope Innocent III ordered the peasants to Constantinople. The out-of-control Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling and stealing all they could lay hands on- nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. For further reading please see: Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, intro., xiii. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong.  If you believe that all wars are sinful.  Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all.  If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would  stop them by force or would you watch them get killed.  This is the same thing with a war on a national level.  Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation.  The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died.  The Ten Comandments says &amp;quot;Thy Shalt Not Kill&amp;quot;, but are you not killing when you refuse to  defend the defenseless?  For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed.  I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist.  Deborah G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---&lt;br /&gt;
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. --- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends &amp;amp; family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe&lt;br /&gt;
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades.  The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe.  Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways.  I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question for above statement- How did the Crusades expose Western Europe to science and technology? From what I remember, the Rennaisance really started to kick in around the late 1300's and early 1400's, the same time that Greek-Orthodox scientists, scholars, and artists were fleeing the Turkish onslought. Nobodies ever heard of El Greco? Born as Greek-Orthodox in Crete and famous Rennaisance painter who introduced new styles? Imagine who he inspired and taught, and spread rennaisance tradition, all thanks to the Turkish onslought and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims &amp;quot;Mohammedans&amp;quot;?  We don't call Americans &amp;quot;Washingtonans&amp;quot; or Jewish people &amp;quot;Abrahamans&amp;quot;.  I'm not saying the term &amp;quot;Mohammedan&amp;quot; is necessarily incorrect.  It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West.  But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term &amp;quot;Mohammedan&amp;quot; because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term &amp;quot;moslem&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;muslim&amp;quot; to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force.  However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today).  These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status.  Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations.  The rise of Islam disrupted this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The first four Crusades were an attempt to &amp;quot;roll back&amp;quot; the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide.  Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists.  By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed.  Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east.  Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it.  It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations.  So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years.  This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please could you provide your sources for the &amp;quot;disruption of trade&amp;quot; leading to economic problems in Western Europe?   My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -&amp;gt; Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It was bad because it was bloody? All wars are bloody. I suggest that you give us some more substantive reasons, and put them under &amp;quot;Bad&amp;quot;. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I&amp;quot;m not saying it was bad because it was bloody - I'm saying it was bad because of the horrible atrocities based on race. It was in effect a genocide (The sack of Jerusalem, that is) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves.  like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. &amp;quot;live and let live&amp;quot; seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that &amp;quot;dont care/believe about religion/god&amp;quot; does not equal &amp;quot;im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag&amp;quot; and leave me out of  the quarrel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, to summarize thoughts...&lt;br /&gt;
Thry needed to retake the land, also Pope wanted to show dignity, they needed Christian world(?)and land, Muslims were&lt;br /&gt;
first to kill pilgrims, so crusades were good.. 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bad==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Billy M.=)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem.  Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages.  Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction.  The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed.  There is no justification for the crusades as a &amp;quot;Holy War.&amp;quot;  Christianity is not a violent religion.  We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians.  A Country has a right to control who comes into that country.  The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem.  This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there.  If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we?  There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries.  Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war.  The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war.  He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died.  Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baaad!!!!!!!&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright.  There were economic factors at work.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an &amp;quot;economic factor&amp;quot;.   [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade.  As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other.  As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc.  But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals.  AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge.  Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher.  Not all animals are scavangers.  As Moses said, &amp;quot;ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean.&amp;quot;  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Killing people to support trade (unless it's an absolutely vital trade, like food to a country that can't grow its own, or something similarly important) is never justifiable.  Deciding to kill people if there's no risk to human life isn't justifiable, and then it's better to try to avoid it if it's at all possible.  The cargo going along the silk road was mostly composed of spices such as nutmeg.  Those were used (mostly by the wealthy) to flavor tasteless food.  Definitely not something that makes killing people acceptable. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:26, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comment==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thou shalt not kill.  It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out.  It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==BAAAAAD!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, they were the [[Moors]]. I agree with you, but it does your argument a disservice. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:41, 8 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why does this topic even exist?  Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on.  Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected.  Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I get it.  When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says &amp;quot;convert or die,&amp;quot; you're supposed to convert.  Duh.  Why didn't I think of that?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land.  There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time.  Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long.  [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today.  Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm.....  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right.  War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;, and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves?  Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully.  Bowing to a king and calling senators &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;?  How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators &amp;quot;Senator&amp;quot;?  I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.&lt;br /&gt;
by 1718&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The greed of the few outweighs the needs of the many ~ Anonymous&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;What you do to the least of these, you do unto me&amp;quot;.... I'd say a lot of crusaders did a lot of harm to &amp;quot;the least of those&amp;quot; they came across.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==TRAGIC==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can not say in my opinion that the Crusades were good or bad. I think they were both, and neither. I find it more fitting to label them as tragic. It is my belief that they should not have been carried out, or at the very least they should have been conducted differently, especially the later ones. However, the fact that they were carried out, then it is my belief that things would have been better had they been ultimately successful. That the West (and do not go deluding yourselves this was a religious thing, it was not, it was a political and cultural thing, religion was used to spur on the zealots on both sides...) should have retained the Holy Land, that the world would have been better for it, if we were to use today's world as a reference point (but then hindsight is always 20/20). The The powers that be bhind he Crusades should have left the Jews alone, and sacking Constantinople was absolute lunacy. But again, it was a different time, and you couldn't expect more from the common christian of that era to be hateful and virulent towards the &amp;quot;killers of Christ&amp;quot; nor could you expect any Pope of that era to abide any collusion or otherwise beneficial relations with &amp;quot;schismatics.&amp;quot; So in a word, the whole affair was tragic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similiar inquiries within Islamic venues would most likely involve a &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; over the merits of Jihad.  To which right wing Americans would gasp, even when this other &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; is essentially the same.  -JBall&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F&amp;diff=790923</id>
		<title>Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Crusades..._Good_or_Bad%3F&amp;diff=790923"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:24:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Necessary==&lt;br /&gt;
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating &amp;quot;fighting for ones values&amp;quot;. Where can we reconcile violence with &amp;quot;love one another&amp;quot;? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the dumbest thing i have ever read.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Good==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without  cause other than religios orientation is sin. The  Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are     fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted &amp;quot;Love thy neighbor as thy self.&amp;quot; That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reply:  There haven't been any credible sources that state that Christian pilgrims were killed or harassed in the Holy Land.  If there was some killing, it was greatly exagerated by Pope Urban III at the Council of Clermont&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful.  As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils.  But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight.  When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre.  We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful.  The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful.  I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war.  Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal.  The Crusades were good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly&lt;br /&gt;
:*Mr. Schlafly, if you are not familiar, the crusades were not uniformly good. The fourth crusade was not an attempt to recapture the holy land, but instead was a profitable and disgraceful act in which Pope Innocent III ordered the peasants to Constantinople. The out-of-control Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling and stealing all they could lay hands on- nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks. For further reading please see: Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, intro., xiii. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong.  If you believe that all wars are sinful.  Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all.  If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would  stop them by force or would you watch them get killed.  This is the same thing with a war on a national level.  Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation.  The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died.  The Ten Comandments says &amp;quot;Thy Shalt Not Kill&amp;quot;, but are you not killing when you refuse to  defend the defenseless?  For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed.  I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist.  Deborah G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---&lt;br /&gt;
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. --- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends &amp;amp; family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe&lt;br /&gt;
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades.  The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe.  Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways.  I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question for above statement- How did the Crusades expose Western Europe to science and technology? From what I remember, the Rennaisance really started to kick in around the late 1300's and early 1400's, the same time that Greek-Orthodox scientists, scholars, and artists were fleeing the Turkish onslought. Nobodies ever heard of El Greco? Born as Greek-Orthodox in Crete and famous Rennaisance painter who introduced new styles? Imagine who he inspired and taught, and spread rennaisance tradition, all thanks to the Turkish onslought and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims &amp;quot;Mohammedans&amp;quot;?  We don't call Americans &amp;quot;Washingtonans&amp;quot; or Jewish people &amp;quot;Abrahamans&amp;quot;.  I'm not saying the term &amp;quot;Mohammedan&amp;quot; is necessarily incorrect.  It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West.  But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term &amp;quot;Mohammedan&amp;quot; because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term &amp;quot;moslem&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;muslim&amp;quot; to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force.  However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today).  These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status.  Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations.  The rise of Islam disrupted this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The first four Crusades were an attempt to &amp;quot;roll back&amp;quot; the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide.  Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists.  By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed.  Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east.  Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it.  It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations.  So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years.  This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please could you provide your sources for the &amp;quot;disruption of trade&amp;quot; leading to economic problems in Western Europe?   My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Paupers Crusade (Or Peasants Crusade) was actually the first ever crusade. It failed miserably though, the remnants finally meeting up with the de facto first crusade, which comprised of some of the mightiest princes of France. Some historians have went so far as to call it the Frankish Crusade. As per the original question, the Crusades were horrible, an act of genocide impossible to defend. When the Christians took Jerusalem, the blood of the Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians went as high as their ankles. It truly was a bloody atrocity, and trying to frame it any other way is intellectually dishonest. In fact, a discussion like this wouldn't be found anywere else but conservapedia, which I suppose in itself is a good thing. What most amazes me about this debate is that some people can actually claim it was a good thing -&amp;gt; Pope John Paul II himself apologised for what is broadly considered one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of all time. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It was bad because it was bloody? All wars are bloody. I suggest that you give us some more substantive reasons, and put them under &amp;quot;Bad&amp;quot;. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I&amp;quot;m not saying it was bad because it was bloody - I'm saying it was bad because of the horrible atrocities based on race. It was in effect a genocide (The sack of Jerusalem, that is) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crusades were good, and bad depending on context to me. anytime religious folk want to murder one another over thier imaginary friend, im glad i live in a country where that sort of behavior is looked down upon (for now.) its bad when, you know, it turns into embarassing things like witch burnings and such. if 2 people or persons agree to disagree and have a throwdown, then there should be a designated area for them to express themselves.  like an entire country for them to go to so people can kill themselves over thier imaginary friend...oh wait. &amp;quot;live and let live&amp;quot; seems too simple ,and too complicated ant the same time. iif you want to ruin with religion, cool! then can you at least try not to involve anyone i care about in it. and in turn just respect the fact that &amp;quot;dont care/believe about religion/god&amp;quot; does not equal &amp;quot;im an uncaring heretic baby raping,puppy kicking scumbag&amp;quot; and leave me out of  the quarrel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, to summarize thoughts...&lt;br /&gt;
Thry needed to retake the land, also Pope wanted to show dignity, they needed Christian world(?)and land, Muslims were&lt;br /&gt;
first to kill pilgrims, so crusades were good.. 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bad==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Billy M.=)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem.  Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages.  Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction.  The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed.  There is no justification for the crusades as a &amp;quot;Holy War.&amp;quot;  Christianity is not a violent religion.  We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians.  A Country has a right to control who comes into that country.  The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem.  This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there.  If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we?  There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries.  Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war.  The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war.  He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died.  Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tim&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baaad!!!!!!!&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright.  There were economic factors at work.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an &amp;quot;economic factor&amp;quot;.   [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade.  As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other.  As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc.  But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals.  AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge.  Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::::umm a scavanger eats road kill, and thus is unkosher.  Not all animals are scavangers.  As Moses said, &amp;quot;ye shall learn the difference between clean and unclean.&amp;quot;  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Killing people to support trade (unless it's an absolutely vital trade, like food to a country that can't grow its own, or something similarly important) is never justifiable.  Deciding to kill people if there's no risk to human life isn't justifiable, and then it's better to try to avoid it if it's at all possible.  The cargo going along the silk road was mostly composed of spices such as nutmeg.  Those were used (mostly by the wealthy) to flavor tasteless food.  Definitely not something that makes killing people acceptable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comment==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thou shalt not kill.  It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out.  It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==BAAAAAD!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, they were the [[Moors]]. I agree with you, but it does your argument a disservice. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:41, 8 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why does this topic even exist?  Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on.  Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected.  Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I get it.  When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says &amp;quot;convert or die,&amp;quot; you're supposed to convert.  Duh.  Why didn't I think of that?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land.  There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time.  Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long.  [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today.  Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm.....  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right.  War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;, and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves?  Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully.  Bowing to a king and calling senators &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;?  How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators &amp;quot;Senator&amp;quot;?  I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.&lt;br /&gt;
by 1718&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The greed of the few outweighs the needs of the many ~ Anonymous&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;What you do to the least of these, you do unto me&amp;quot;.... I'd say a lot of crusaders did a lot of harm to &amp;quot;the least of those&amp;quot; they came across.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==TRAGIC==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can not say in my opinion that the Crusades were good or bad. I think they were both, and neither. I find it more fitting to label them as tragic. It is my belief that they should not have been carried out, or at the very least they should have been conducted differently, especially the later ones. However, the fact that they were carried out, then it is my belief that things would have been better had they been ultimately successful. That the West (and do not go deluding yourselves this was a religious thing, it was not, it was a political and cultural thing, religion was used to spur on the zealots on both sides...) should have retained the Holy Land, that the world would have been better for it, if we were to use today's world as a reference point (but then hindsight is always 20/20). The The powers that be bhind he Crusades should have left the Jews alone, and sacking Constantinople was absolute lunacy. But again, it was a different time, and you couldn't expect more from the common christian of that era to be hateful and virulent towards the &amp;quot;killers of Christ&amp;quot; nor could you expect any Pope of that era to abide any collusion or otherwise beneficial relations with &amp;quot;schismatics.&amp;quot; So in a word, the whole affair was tragic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similiar inquiries within Islamic venues would most likely involve a &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; over the merits of Jihad.  To which right wing Americans would gasp, even when this other &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; is essentially the same.  -JBall&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Why_have_conservatives_let_themselves_get_a_bad_name%3F&amp;diff=790917</id>
		<title>Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Why_have_conservatives_let_themselves_get_a_bad_name%3F&amp;diff=790917"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:04:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
::&lt;br /&gt;
I'm young (22) and exposed to a large group of liberals (in college) but it seems to me that the conservative movement has had a real problem with dirty tricks. Nixon was famous for it, outside of watergate his staffers ordered large numbers of pizzas for his opponents to pay for and invited foreign dignitaries and the like to the campaign events of his opponents so they would show up and be turned away at the door. The Neocon movement has embraced torture despite the fact that the US pretty flatly declared that no circumstances of threat could justify torture back in the 80's when we were the great nation leading the world away from torture. Conservatives are supposed to embrace personal liberty and small government, but many want draconian laws limiting free speech and think its alright to give govt. the power to enforce them. Unwarranted surveillance and sending troops to war with out a declaration from congress. This isn't conservative, we are not holding on to our constitution or our values, we are giving them up one by one to do something that looks clever. I see it in religion too, a great many people seem to have a religious outlook on existence that is based on tricking God into giving them eternal life, and attitude where they can go through life being awful in Gods name and then repent and be fine and that Jesus will forgive them because they are sinners. Personally I am a very forgiving individual, but if I learn that someone is going to do something to hurt me and assumes that I will forgive them because they ask me too I am likely to tell them just where they can stick there apology; If you premeditate remorse in to your plan to do something wrong as far as I am concerned no one with even a fraction of all knowing could possibly see that remorse as true rather than an insult on top of the prior wrong doing. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It is because a lot of conservative principles are abhorrent things like opposition to equal rights for everyone, railing against food stamps, and killing middle eastern people.  Also if you are not a WASP, you are an America-hating commie, according to the conservative talking heads on tv. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Nixon was a liberal Republican just as Bush and the neo-conservatives are. Brendanw is right about neoconservatism, I frequently tell people that Bush is an &amp;quot;FDR pro-business liberal&amp;quot; and they laugh at me, when in reality neoconservatism was a word invented by &amp;amp; for the anti-Johnson, anti-hippie, pro-business left-wingers of the 1940s (i.e. FDR's Bretton Woods and wanting to end Social Security after the Depression). In addition, most people don't understand how monetary policy and inflation work. (In elementary school until late high school, I could not understand why someone would be &amp;quot;pro-business&amp;quot; instead of pro-poor, and called myself a &amp;quot;Democratic Communist&amp;quot; lol)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for the religion issue, I think people hate Christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not motivated by specific hate for specifically Christianity. My father suggests their respect for freedom coupled with hate for Christianity might be Satan-influenced. Who knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Racism is an issue with many conservatives, I hate to say it but it is a problem we have to face in order to remove a stereotype. While most people want to deal with illegal immigration, reverse discrimination, and preservation of language and culture for non-racist reasons, some seem to be motivated by a subtle racism. For example, I don't know if you've ever heard the Richard Bergis staged prank calls (available on YouTube), but one describes the problem of this subtle racism perfectly. The pranksters tell Bergis that there will be a black NASCAR driver, and at first he starts out making racist jokes, then it's &amp;quot;Can't white people have one thing for themselves?&amp;quot; and finally a slew of insults, racial slurs, and swearing. Now this is exaggerated and (judging by the other ones) fake, but you get my idea. If we are to defeat this stereotype, people who support paleoist ideas have to make it clear that they are not motivated by racism or anti-Semitism and why.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: And most importantly, biases of left-wing media outlets such as CNN and the once-libertarian-leaning MSNBC must be effectively challenged and exposed by Fox News and talk radio. The left criticizes us for &amp;quot;entertainment news&amp;quot; and reliance on personalities with opinions, but unlike the left' supposed lack of bias we admit it's &amp;quot;opinion&amp;quot;. Blogs can help as well in getting the public to realize that there is no &amp;quot;objective news&amp;quot; and each side has an agenda. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, I'm a realist. I'm conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. Let me define the two terms the way I view them. Conservative: keeping things the same, tradition, embracing what works realistically at a given time.  Liberal: Thinking outside of convention, newness, rebelliousness to norm.  I have both qualities, its part of being human. I believe in gun ownership and also the right to burn the flag.  I do not lean to one side or another like the media. The media and politics have forced people to pick sides. But the biggest thing, in my view, that gives conservatives a bad name is that most individuals that declare they are conservative do not think outside the box and impede good progress. Don't forget, the american revolution was a liberal move. Also, many conservatives I know let nationalism and religion cloud true reason. Most liberally minded people think outside the box and rebel and cause much pain for themselves, BUT in doing that searching they find truths and ideas that challenge those who do not challenge convention but merely accept it for what it is. Conservatives have a bad name because they refuse to see things from a liberal viewpoint. Instead they blame it on the devil or something like that. This is the 21st century, its high time our minds start questioning. --Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for your candid analysis, but it sounds like you're on a path to atheism, and 99% of atheists end up being liberal.  This may be the 21st century, but evil hasn't magically disappeared.  Censoring the Bible, the most logical book ever written, doesn't make it any less true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 6 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Shlafly, it's an honor to meet you. &lt;br /&gt;
I am not against the bible but you cannot rule out other religions that add to the vast scope of the human experience. I was raised lutheran and went to a lutheran school for most of my life. The Bible does have logical teachings. There is &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; in the world but saying that it stems from the devil is a belief, not a fact. It can be a fact to many conservative people who will fight for it, and that's the problem. There is no evidence and that is frowned upon by many people. What I meant by it's the 21st century is that we have reached a growth in civilization where it is time to look for new answers to old problems. I believe that people's actions and thoughts can hurt the world around us, be it aggression or mere ignorance, but being atheist does not con-notate a bad thing but merely a lack of belief in what there is not enough evidence for. They rebel to tradition. Philosophically, what evidence do you have outside the bible that evil appeared in the 1st place? -That being something a liberal would ask. I would also like to hear your concise opinion on what a liberal is.  Also, here's a link to an interesting video: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html   -- Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lack of [[faith]] is the single greatest cause of depression and despair.  There have been famous [[atheists]], some of whom went crazy.  The output of that belief system is mostly harmful.  Contrast that with the output of Christianity.  How many atheistic hospitals have been built compared with Christian hospitals, for example?  That is virtually zero compared with thousands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 7 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been famous christians, some of whom went crazy. I can argue against the output of religion as much as I can against atheism. Atheism and liberalism by nature are to offset convention and cause a tempest, call it growing pains. The night is always darkest just before the dawn, you cannot have newness without destroying what was there before. Therefore, Rome changing from pagan to christian also had a harmful output. It is all about perspective. I agree with your hospital bit, but there are almost no atheist hospitals because there is no atheist church that gives contributions. Christianity is also more organized. Atheists are normally against any spiritual organization. As for lack of faith causing depression, I would have to agree and disagree. It has been proven that people with faith live longer and happier lives. Religion is the opiate of the masses. It can be mind control and it can be wrong but it can make us feel confident and gives us drive. Atheists usually have no religious motivation, atheists are wandering and exploring. As somewhat of an atheist, I do not mind that searching because every stone I turn over has another truth. I do not mind sacrificing a comfortable, structured life to enable myself to see the complexities of this world. Jesus taught how to live your life. I agree with his teaching of love and we should strive to be as loving and tolerant as him. But God, a creator, that is a different story altogether... &lt;br /&gt;
Let me bring up conservationism and liberalism again. Conservatives get a bad name because of their blatant bias. A liberal can form a bias over time but the natural liberal has NO bias. Liberals are searching for new answers and thinking outside of convention. Conservatives will do whatever they can to uphold convention no matter how unrealistic it may be. They will target opponents personally. Lets look at the root words of liberal and conservative. Conservative: CONSERVe, CONvention. Liberal: LIBERAte, deLIBERAte, LIBERty.  Conservativism is to conserve tradition and liberalism is to free oneself, deliberate and discuss complexities. All in all, liberals use critical thinking to answer questions, conservatives seem to use the answers of tradition and their bias as what is normal based on how they have been conditioned over the years in their social surroundings. FOX news targeted the children who were singing about Obama and called it &amp;quot;indoctrination&amp;quot;. The facts in that situation is that the children were given permission slips which all parents signed and they sung about every president. FOX merely looked at children singing a song about Obama and wanted to relate to nazi germany. I'm sorry but that is blatant BIAS! Look us the definition of bias and you will find that it is a belief in something based on unfairness and narrow-mindedness. Being open to ideas, being liberal is NOT having a bias. ---Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well here's a question, regarding the output of atheism and Christianity, and the dark before the dawn. How long a time of negative output do you allow atheism before you change your mind and say that atheism is likely not capable of great positive output? Christianity began to have positive output within the first few hundred years of its existence. Has atheism, in the form of Enlightenment thinking and modern secular humanism had the same positive output? If you think it has do you have any examples? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:27, 8 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, your argument leaves out libertarians, neoconservatives, some paleoconservatives (like Raimondo), Jews, atheists, agnostics, gays, probably even pagans and Muslims, and plenty of others who would call themselves conservatives and combining it all under the Christian Right. Plenty of conservatives favor change, even forward change. For example, neoconservatives are against laissez-faire capitalism and could support left-leaning pro-business economic policy. Plenty of conservative think tanks can make these arguments. There are varying reactions to technology in a world changing since 1776, namely with regard to stem-cell research and human cloning, and even with copyright policy, from the original time-limited government grant to recent views of a private property right. And with the conservatives supporting greater individual rights, your own life, and the life of the ones you love, can change in a non-Christian manner with or without government intervention. Also, you forget that &amp;quot;liberalism&amp;quot; was originally a term for the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers and not support for welfare programs - most countries still call the Right &amp;quot;liberal democrats&amp;quot; and the Left &amp;quot;social democrats&amp;quot;. If you define &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot; as not being open to change, you are leaving out plenty on the Right who are. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:24, 14 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My argument isn't necessarily to target any groups but individual's philosophies that are liberal and conservative. I'm simply saying that bias is antithetical to keeping an open mind. - I think that conservativism gets a bad name because of websites like this. There is a small group within the conservative demographic that agrees with everything on here. But to label this site as &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot; gives all the rest of the people in America who consider themselves conservative a bad name. That conservapedia bible project... really?? rewriting the bible to fit an ideology is ridiculous at the least. I can go on and on. This site has its work cut out for it.  And to reply to AddisonDM, the positive output christianity had equaled the negative input it added to other groups. Modern secularism is opening people's minds to more realistic and less superstitious ideas. We are making decisions based on rationality and not on religion. Christianity had bad affects just like atheism has bad affects. Christianity changed paganism forever and rationality will change christianity forever. Its the evolution of human society. ---Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, I urge you to get out more.  There are twice as many &amp;quot;[[conservative]]s&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;[[liberal]]s&amp;quot;, and in the latter category are many people who are obvious hucksters, like [[Al Gore]], or people who don't say anything meaningful, like [[Barack Obama]], or people who refuse to open their mind.  Realize that conservatives give to charity at a higher rate than liberals, and the next time you or a loved one benefits from that charity, thank a conservative and open your mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree with Andy here, the only people who view conservatives in a bad light are liberals.  I am not concerned that a (small and getting smaller) group who have rejected all logic would wish to give my conservatism a bad name.  [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 14:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, there are a variety of people on Conservapedia, but I do agree that it is much more populated by the Religious Right. (I always recommend people looking for information favorable to creationism here.) Most liberals I know are permanently stuck with the false stereotype you are trying to hide, and no matter what you tell them, there is no way in their minds for conservatives to be charitable, color-blind, intelligent, educated, not from the South or not a Bible Christian. For example, according to a liberal, if you are Republican, you don't care about the poor, and you cannot possibly care about helping the poor if you are a Republican. As for the Conservative Bible Project, I too am not a fan - I have seen stuff I don't like, and personally I feel that having fiery King James alongside a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; TEV or NIV solves the archaic language issue perfectly. But I keep quiet, and there's so much else here which I as a Catholic conservative am perfectly comfortable with, and I'm sure atheist/agnostic conservatives such as yourself can find something you'll enjoy here too. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoy coming here for a good laugh and to point out ridiculousness and contradiction. I watch FOX news for the same thing. I am not alligning with any party and I see the good and the bad of being conservative or liberal. Classical liberalism is about personal freedom and promotes that government protect an individual's pursuit of happiness under the law.  classical conservatism is about using government control to promote virtue or a certain morality, and that government comes from God. Liberalism spawned the scientific method that works according to our sense of logic and is always improving. Conservatism in America is too focused on moral purity based on a God that they can't even prove exists. Their attempts at proof are subjective in nature and anything they find that is objective does not match up with the scientific method. Then because It doesn't work with the method, they blame it humanities lack to perceive God because of our shortcomings, or blames it on a Liberal conspiracy. However, they forget that human perception has formed their definition of God anyways. Contradiction and denial of logic- mostly endorsed by the conservative media.  That is why conservatives have gained a bad name. And Shlafly, you should open your mind and &amp;quot;get out more&amp;quot;- like out of your basement in New Jersey before you insult my intelligence like that again. Also, you haven't shown that you have an open mind. I am trying to have an honest debate.-Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, the laughter is against you, Nonobu.  You're wrong on several key points.  The first point is that their is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism; the classical version espoused liberty and liberality, and made it a point of ''giving'' rather than ''taking''.  Modern liberalism - and anyone can see it for themselves in the media - has turned ''taking'' into a necessity and, through use of the government, merged taking with ''stealing''.  You may be correct in asserting that liberals have come up with the [[Scientific method]], but it's use today has been thrown out the window ''by liberals themselves'', as the [[Climategate]] emails have proven to the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:The second point is the fact that you are wrong on conservatives.  &amp;quot;Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day&amp;quot; is liberalism; &amp;quot;teach a man to fish and you feed him for life&amp;quot; is conservatism.  Which is more in the essence of giving?  Liberals feel good about giving a homeless man a shopping cart; conservatives feel good about getting the homeless man away from the cart, into a job, and into a home with the personal responsibility attached.  And you say we deny logic?&lt;br /&gt;
:The third point is look at liberal attacks on God and the Bible.  It isn't conservatives doing it.  The moral standard that we follow is rooted in the Bible; the moral standard of this country's founding is in the Bible; the majority of the Founding Fathers believed in the God of the Bible, and today's liberals - by tossing out the Bible - pretend that they are better than Washington or Jefferson or Hamilton?  By removing Ten Commandments markers from public squares, are liberals saying that their view is better?  If so, then go out and kill someone.  Rob a bank.  Spit on your mother.  Rape someone's wife.  Break all of the commandments in addition to the lying that you displayed here.  Let's see how far you get, because if liberalism is better, then you should be able to get away with murder and stealing and adultery and all the rest.&lt;br /&gt;
:Face it, Nonobu, the country has shown through the TEA Parties and the Massachusetts election that they are fed up with the deceit that is liberalism.  It is high time that you wake your sorry butt up and see what it really is, because in the end there will be accountability.  The God that ''you deny exists'' will make you stand before Him and He will judge you accordingly.  You know full well how to change that.  The choice is your's.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 21 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I used to have a stronger negative opinion of conservatism than I do now.  I'm still very definitely a political moderate; I tend to lean more toward conservatism in my own personal life (trying to follow the word of God in everything that I do), but I'm more centrist politically and somewhat liberal economically.&lt;br /&gt;
I used to rant against Conservapedia all the time, at first because I didn't really understand the reality of some of the Biblical stuff on the site, and then later on I just refused to accept that anything conservative could be right.  Still, even now that I realize that there is a lot of good information on the site, I still think that part of why this website has such a negative public image is because it attacks liberals ''so severely''.  The front page is basically a mock-shrine to criticizing Obama.  The page on homosexuality mentioned that we need to be loving and forgiving (which is very true), but the pages on liberal economic policies are nothing but judgmental, even though being economically liberal in and of itself (supporting universal health care, welfare programs, being [[politically correct]], etc.) is not a sinful act. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Why_have_conservatives_let_themselves_get_a_bad_name%3F&amp;diff=790916</id>
		<title>Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Why_have_conservatives_let_themselves_get_a_bad_name%3F&amp;diff=790916"/>
		<updated>2010-06-29T12:03:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
::&lt;br /&gt;
I'm young (22) and exposed to a large group of liberals (in college) but it seems to me that the conservative movement has had a real problem with dirty tricks. Nixon was famous for it, outside of watergate his staffers ordered large numbers of pizzas for his opponents to pay for and invited foreign dignitaries and the like to the campaign events of his opponents so they would show up and be turned away at the door. The Neocon movement has embraced torture despite the fact that the US pretty flatly declared that no circumstances of threat could justify torture back in the 80's when we were the great nation leading the world away from torture. Conservatives are supposed to embrace personal liberty and small government, but many want draconian laws limiting free speech and think its alright to give govt. the power to enforce them. Unwarranted surveillance and sending troops to war with out a declaration from congress. This isn't conservative, we are not holding on to our constitution or our values, we are giving them up one by one to do something that looks clever. I see it in religion too, a great many people seem to have a religious outlook on existence that is based on tricking God into giving them eternal life, and attitude where they can go through life being awful in Gods name and then repent and be fine and that Jesus will forgive them because they are sinners. Personally I am a very forgiving individual, but if I learn that someone is going to do something to hurt me and assumes that I will forgive them because they ask me too I am likely to tell them just where they can stick there apology; If you premeditate remorse in to your plan to do something wrong as far as I am concerned no one with even a fraction of all knowing could possibly see that remorse as true rather than an insult on top of the prior wrong doing. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It is because a lot of conservative principles are abhorrent things like opposition to equal rights for everyone, railing against food stamps, and killing middle eastern people.  Also if you are not a WASP, you are an America-hating commie, according to the conservative talking heads on tv. [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Nixon was a liberal Republican just as Bush and the neo-conservatives are. Brendanw is right about neoconservatism, I frequently tell people that Bush is an &amp;quot;FDR pro-business liberal&amp;quot; and they laugh at me, when in reality neoconservatism was a word invented by &amp;amp; for the anti-Johnson, anti-hippie, pro-business left-wingers of the 1940s (i.e. FDR's Bretton Woods and wanting to end Social Security after the Depression). In addition, most people don't understand how monetary policy and inflation work. (In elementary school until late high school, I could not understand why someone would be &amp;quot;pro-business&amp;quot; instead of pro-poor, and called myself a &amp;quot;Democratic Communist&amp;quot; lol)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for the religion issue, I think people hate Christianity anyway. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not motivated by specific hate for specifically Christianity. My father suggests their respect for freedom coupled with hate for Christianity might be Satan-influenced. Who knows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Racism is an issue with many conservatives, I hate to say it but it is a problem we have to face in order to remove a stereotype. While most people want to deal with illegal immigration, reverse discrimination, and preservation of language and culture for non-racist reasons, some seem to be motivated by a subtle racism. For example, I don't know if you've ever heard the Richard Bergis staged prank calls (available on YouTube), but one describes the problem of this subtle racism perfectly. The pranksters tell Bergis that there will be a black NASCAR driver, and at first he starts out making racist jokes, then it's &amp;quot;Can't white people have one thing for themselves?&amp;quot; and finally a slew of insults, racial slurs, and swearing. Now this is exaggerated and (judging by the other ones) fake, but you get my idea. If we are to defeat this stereotype, people who support paleoist ideas have to make it clear that they are not motivated by racism or anti-Semitism and why.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: And most importantly, biases of left-wing media outlets such as CNN and the once-libertarian-leaning MSNBC must be effectively challenged and exposed by Fox News and talk radio. The left criticizes us for &amp;quot;entertainment news&amp;quot; and reliance on personalities with opinions, but unlike the left' supposed lack of bias we admit it's &amp;quot;opinion&amp;quot;. Blogs can help as well in getting the public to realize that there is no &amp;quot;objective news&amp;quot; and each side has an agenda. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 19:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, I'm a realist. I'm conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. Let me define the two terms the way I view them. Conservative: keeping things the same, tradition, embracing what works realistically at a given time.  Liberal: Thinking outside of convention, newness, rebelliousness to norm.  I have both qualities, its part of being human. I believe in gun ownership and also the right to burn the flag.  I do not lean to one side or another like the media. The media and politics have forced people to pick sides. But the biggest thing, in my view, that gives conservatives a bad name is that most individuals that declare they are conservative do not think outside the box and impede good progress. Don't forget, the american revolution was a liberal move. Also, many conservatives I know let nationalism and religion cloud true reason. Most liberally minded people think outside the box and rebel and cause much pain for themselves, BUT in doing that searching they find truths and ideas that challenge those who do not challenge convention but merely accept it for what it is. Conservatives have a bad name because they refuse to see things from a liberal viewpoint. Instead they blame it on the devil or something like that. This is the 21st century, its high time our minds start questioning. --Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for your candid analysis, but it sounds like you're on a path to atheism, and 99% of atheists end up being liberal.  This may be the 21st century, but evil hasn't magically disappeared.  Censoring the Bible, the most logical book ever written, doesn't make it any less true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 6 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Shlafly, it's an honor to meet you. &lt;br /&gt;
I am not against the bible but you cannot rule out other religions that add to the vast scope of the human experience. I was raised lutheran and went to a lutheran school for most of my life. The Bible does have logical teachings. There is &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; in the world but saying that it stems from the devil is a belief, not a fact. It can be a fact to many conservative people who will fight for it, and that's the problem. There is no evidence and that is frowned upon by many people. What I meant by it's the 21st century is that we have reached a growth in civilization where it is time to look for new answers to old problems. I believe that people's actions and thoughts can hurt the world around us, be it aggression or mere ignorance, but being atheist does not con-notate a bad thing but merely a lack of belief in what there is not enough evidence for. They rebel to tradition. Philosophically, what evidence do you have outside the bible that evil appeared in the 1st place? -That being something a liberal would ask. I would also like to hear your concise opinion on what a liberal is.  Also, here's a link to an interesting video: http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html   -- Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lack of [[faith]] is the single greatest cause of depression and despair.  There have been famous [[atheists]], some of whom went crazy.  The output of that belief system is mostly harmful.  Contrast that with the output of Christianity.  How many atheistic hospitals have been built compared with Christian hospitals, for example?  That is virtually zero compared with thousands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 7 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been famous christians, some of whom went crazy. I can argue against the output of religion as much as I can against atheism. Atheism and liberalism by nature are to offset convention and cause a tempest, call it growing pains. The night is always darkest just before the dawn, you cannot have newness without destroying what was there before. Therefore, Rome changing from pagan to christian also had a harmful output. It is all about perspective. I agree with your hospital bit, but there are almost no atheist hospitals because there is no atheist church that gives contributions. Christianity is also more organized. Atheists are normally against any spiritual organization. As for lack of faith causing depression, I would have to agree and disagree. It has been proven that people with faith live longer and happier lives. Religion is the opiate of the masses. It can be mind control and it can be wrong but it can make us feel confident and gives us drive. Atheists usually have no religious motivation, atheists are wandering and exploring. As somewhat of an atheist, I do not mind that searching because every stone I turn over has another truth. I do not mind sacrificing a comfortable, structured life to enable myself to see the complexities of this world. Jesus taught how to live your life. I agree with his teaching of love and we should strive to be as loving and tolerant as him. But God, a creator, that is a different story altogether... &lt;br /&gt;
Let me bring up conservationism and liberalism again. Conservatives get a bad name because of their blatant bias. A liberal can form a bias over time but the natural liberal has NO bias. Liberals are searching for new answers and thinking outside of convention. Conservatives will do whatever they can to uphold convention no matter how unrealistic it may be. They will target opponents personally. Lets look at the root words of liberal and conservative. Conservative: CONSERVe, CONvention. Liberal: LIBERAte, deLIBERAte, LIBERty.  Conservativism is to conserve tradition and liberalism is to free oneself, deliberate and discuss complexities. All in all, liberals use critical thinking to answer questions, conservatives seem to use the answers of tradition and their bias as what is normal based on how they have been conditioned over the years in their social surroundings. FOX news targeted the children who were singing about Obama and called it &amp;quot;indoctrination&amp;quot;. The facts in that situation is that the children were given permission slips which all parents signed and they sung about every president. FOX merely looked at children singing a song about Obama and wanted to relate to nazi germany. I'm sorry but that is blatant BIAS! Look us the definition of bias and you will find that it is a belief in something based on unfairness and narrow-mindedness. Being open to ideas, being liberal is NOT having a bias. ---Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well here's a question, regarding the output of atheism and Christianity, and the dark before the dawn. How long a time of negative output do you allow atheism before you change your mind and say that atheism is likely not capable of great positive output? Christianity began to have positive output within the first few hundred years of its existence. Has atheism, in the form of Enlightenment thinking and modern secular humanism had the same positive output? If you think it has do you have any examples? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:27, 8 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, your argument leaves out libertarians, neoconservatives, some paleoconservatives (like Raimondo), Jews, atheists, agnostics, gays, probably even pagans and Muslims, and plenty of others who would call themselves conservatives and combining it all under the Christian Right. Plenty of conservatives favor change, even forward change. For example, neoconservatives are against laissez-faire capitalism and could support left-leaning pro-business economic policy. Plenty of conservative think tanks can make these arguments. There are varying reactions to technology in a world changing since 1776, namely with regard to stem-cell research and human cloning, and even with copyright policy, from the original time-limited government grant to recent views of a private property right. And with the conservatives supporting greater individual rights, your own life, and the life of the ones you love, can change in a non-Christian manner with or without government intervention. Also, you forget that &amp;quot;liberalism&amp;quot; was originally a term for the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers and not support for welfare programs - most countries still call the Right &amp;quot;liberal democrats&amp;quot; and the Left &amp;quot;social democrats&amp;quot;. If you define &amp;quot;bias&amp;quot; as not being open to change, you are leaving out plenty on the Right who are. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:24, 14 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My argument isn't necessarily to target any groups but individual's philosophies that are liberal and conservative. I'm simply saying that bias is antithetical to keeping an open mind. - I think that conservativism gets a bad name because of websites like this. There is a small group within the conservative demographic that agrees with everything on here. But to label this site as &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot; gives all the rest of the people in America who consider themselves conservative a bad name. That conservapedia bible project... really?? rewriting the bible to fit an ideology is ridiculous at the least. I can go on and on. This site has its work cut out for it.  And to reply to AddisonDM, the positive output christianity had equaled the negative input it added to other groups. Modern secularism is opening people's minds to more realistic and less superstitious ideas. We are making decisions based on rationality and not on religion. Christianity had bad affects just like atheism has bad affects. Christianity changed paganism forever and rationality will change christianity forever. Its the evolution of human society. ---Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, I urge you to get out more.  There are twice as many &amp;quot;[[conservative]]s&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;[[liberal]]s&amp;quot;, and in the latter category are many people who are obvious hucksters, like [[Al Gore]], or people who don't say anything meaningful, like [[Barack Obama]], or people who refuse to open their mind.  Realize that conservatives give to charity at a higher rate than liberals, and the next time you or a loved one benefits from that charity, thank a conservative and open your mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I agree with Andy here, the only people who view conservatives in a bad light are liberals.  I am not concerned that a (small and getting smaller) group who have rejected all logic would wish to give my conservatism a bad name.  [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 14:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nonobu, there are a variety of people on Conservapedia, but I do agree that it is much more populated by the Religious Right. (I always recommend people looking for information favorable to creationism here.) Most liberals I know are permanently stuck with the false stereotype you are trying to hide, and no matter what you tell them, there is no way in their minds for conservatives to be charitable, color-blind, intelligent, educated, not from the South or not a Bible Christian. For example, according to a liberal, if you are Republican, you don't care about the poor, and you cannot possibly care about helping the poor if you are a Republican. As for the Conservative Bible Project, I too am not a fan - I have seen stuff I don't like, and personally I feel that having fiery King James alongside a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; TEV or NIV solves the archaic language issue perfectly. But I keep quiet, and there's so much else here which I as a Catholic conservative am perfectly comfortable with, and I'm sure atheist/agnostic conservatives such as yourself can find something you'll enjoy here too. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:16, 18 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoy coming here for a good laugh and to point out ridiculousness and contradiction. I watch FOX news for the same thing. I am not alligning with any party and I see the good and the bad of being conservative or liberal. Classical liberalism is about personal freedom and promotes that government protect an individual's pursuit of happiness under the law.  classical conservatism is about using government control to promote virtue or a certain morality, and that government comes from God. Liberalism spawned the scientific method that works according to our sense of logic and is always improving. Conservatism in America is too focused on moral purity based on a God that they can't even prove exists. Their attempts at proof are subjective in nature and anything they find that is objective does not match up with the scientific method. Then because It doesn't work with the method, they blame it humanities lack to perceive God because of our shortcomings, or blames it on a Liberal conspiracy. However, they forget that human perception has formed their definition of God anyways. Contradiction and denial of logic- mostly endorsed by the conservative media.  That is why conservatives have gained a bad name. And Shlafly, you should open your mind and &amp;quot;get out more&amp;quot;- like out of your basement in New Jersey before you insult my intelligence like that again. Also, you haven't shown that you have an open mind. I am trying to have an honest debate.-Nonobu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, the laughter is against you, Nonobu.  You're wrong on several key points.  The first point is that their is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism; the classical version espoused liberty and liberality, and made it a point of ''giving'' rather than ''taking''.  Modern liberalism - and anyone can see it for themselves in the media - has turned ''taking'' into a necessity and, through use of the government, merged taking with ''stealing''.  You may be correct in asserting that liberals have come up with the [[Scientific method]], but it's use today has been thrown out the window ''by liberals themselves'', as the [[Climategate]] emails have proven to the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:The second point is the fact that you are wrong on conservatives.  &amp;quot;Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day&amp;quot; is liberalism; &amp;quot;teach a man to fish and you feed him for life&amp;quot; is conservatism.  Which is more in the essence of giving?  Liberals feel good about giving a homeless man a shopping cart; conservatives feel good about getting the homeless man away from the cart, into a job, and into a home with the personal responsibility attached.  And you say we deny logic?&lt;br /&gt;
:The third point is look at liberal attacks on God and the Bible.  It isn't conservatives doing it.  The moral standard that we follow is rooted in the Bible; the moral standard of this country's founding is in the Bible; the majority of the Founding Fathers believed in the God of the Bible, and today's liberals - by tossing out the Bible - pretend that they are better than Washington or Jefferson or Hamilton?  By removing Ten Commandments markers from public squares, are liberals saying that their view is better?  If so, then go out and kill someone.  Rob a bank.  Spit on your mother.  Rape someone's wife.  Break all of the commandments in addition to the lying that you displayed here.  Let's see how far you get, because if liberalism is better, then you should be able to get away with murder and stealing and adultery and all the rest.&lt;br /&gt;
:Face it, Nonobu, the country has shown through the TEA Parties and the Massachusetts election that they are fed up with the deceit that is liberalism.  It is high time that you wake your sorry butt up and see what it really is, because in the end there will be accountability.  The God that ''you deny exists'' will make you stand before Him and He will judge you accordingly.  You know full well how to change that.  The choice is your's.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 21 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I used to have a stronger negative opinion of conservatism than I do now.  I'm still very definitely a political moderate; I tend to lean more toward conservatism in my own personal life (trying to follow the word of God in everything that I do), but I'm more centrist politically and somewhat liberal economically.&lt;br /&gt;
I used to rant against Conservapedia all the time, at first because I didn't really understand the reality of some of the Biblical stuff on the site, and then later on I just refused to accept that anything conservative could be right.  Still, even now that I realize that there is a lot of good information on the site, I still think that part of why this website has such a negative public image is because it attacks liberals ''so severely''.  The front page is basically a mock-shrine to criticizing Obama.  The page on homosexuality mentioned that we need to be loving and forgiving (which is very true), but the pages on liberal economic policies are nothing but judgmental, even though being economically liberal in and of itself (supporting universal health care, welfare programs, being [[politically correct]], etc.) is not a sinful act.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=790551</id>
		<title>Talk:CE</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=790551"/>
		<updated>2010-06-28T12:05:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity.  However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads &amp;quot;While use of &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.&amp;quot;  In fact, although it is not accepted by the &amp;quot;common culture&amp;quot; of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech.  They count the days or months instead of naming them.  For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day.  In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers.  Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something.  For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc.  It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj.  By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc.  The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity.  For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, on checking, I find that &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; can be &lt;br /&gt;
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in &amp;quot;the common era of the Jews.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
*a term used to distinguish the &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. &amp;quot;puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era.&amp;quot;[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&amp;amp;id=qLfiIApQVDkC&amp;amp;pg=PA33&amp;amp;lpg=PA33&amp;amp;dq=%22common+era%22&amp;amp;as_brr=1]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the phrase has been in use for well over a century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus: &amp;quot;The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760&amp;quot; (where B. C. here means &amp;quot;before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&amp;amp;id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&amp;amp;pg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;lpg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era).&amp;quot; [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&amp;amp;id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;pg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;lpg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1889: &amp;quot;Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era.&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Red Men&amp;quot; here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&amp;amp;id=kZLbGv92SjUC&amp;amp;pg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;lpg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that &amp;quot;Christian era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;the system used by Christians,&amp;quot; whereas calling the AD/BC system the &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;this system used by everyone&amp;quot; and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's fascinating material.  Thanks.  Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin.  It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!!  In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people.  My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.&lt;br /&gt;
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source.  In Rabbi Raphall's &amp;quot;Post Biblical History of the Jews&amp;quot;, he uses BCE, and you start seeing &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; and either &amp;quot;ACE&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;CE&amp;quot; from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
What do you mean &amp;quot;It's not in the 1972 dictionary&amp;quot;? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for &amp;quot;in the year of (Our) Lord&amp;quot;) and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless &amp;quot;professor of European history&amp;quot; as quoted here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means &amp;quot;the date commonly accepted and used.&amp;quot; But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some brief points:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues? &lt;br /&gt;
88888888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling?  &amp;quot;Organize&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;Organise.&amp;quot;  I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies.  Bigotry, maybe.  You're a moron.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to fill the bill&amp;quot; rather suddenly get replaced with &amp;quot;to fit the bill&amp;quot; circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to go missing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;went missing,&amp;quot; which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Original Research ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the &amp;quot;western&amp;quot; powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the   original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.&lt;br /&gt;
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; from the vocabulary of the general public.  I absolutely love Liberal Logic!  --[[User:David R|&amp;amp;lt;&amp;amp;lt;-David R-&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: If the general public doesn't want the the word &amp;quot;LORD&amp;quot; in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Common Sense, ppl ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of &amp;quot;wikipedia's bias&amp;quot; signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. &amp;quot;Its just a reference date.&amp;quot; That felt good, huh?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi Dialogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever?  What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means?  Furthermore the &amp;quot;reference&amp;quot; doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was.  It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person.  It doesn't sound encyclopaedic.  [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the &amp;quot;Common Error&amp;quot; doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christian Era==&lt;br /&gt;
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....&lt;br /&gt;
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord&amp;quot; aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; and the patronizing &amp;quot;Year of our Lord&amp;quot; would be something along the lines of AJ for &amp;quot;Year of Jesus.&amp;quot; It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his &amp;quot;Lord.&amp;quot; --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.  Dictionaries could be referenced at least.  A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Current Era&amp;quot; as other meanings for &amp;quot;CE.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of dictionary definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more.  I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot;, linking it to &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot;, which is defined as &amp;quot;the period dating from the birth of Christ&amp;quot;. Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unfortunate Truth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call &amp;quot;Conservatism&amp;quot; is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.&lt;br /&gt;
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- &amp;quot;No Liberalist Bias&amp;quot; and state the example of &amp;quot;terrorists&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;calling a spade a spade&amp;quot; so to speak and not attempting to hide their &amp;quot;true nature&amp;quot;. But isn't the &amp;quot;terrorist&amp;quot; label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.&lt;br /&gt;
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?&lt;br /&gt;
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives ARE the Devil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Locked? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why has this article been locked?  Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia?  Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this.  --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality.  It's not.  It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I've always heard something different ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Before the Christian Era.&amp;quot;--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Did you hear that from some Christians?  Anyway, you heard wrong.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron.  What exactly does this prove?  Also, the term is &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; not (chuckle) &amp;quot;Christian Era.&amp;quot;  The people who made the calendars were Christian.  Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone.  So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive.  What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do?  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ?  If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ.  Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus].  (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic &amp;quot;BC/BCE&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;AD/CE&amp;quot; are used there.)  Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find &amp;quot;BCE/CE&amp;quot; used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same &amp;quot;starting point&amp;quot; as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== more common ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:No it's not.  BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The word &amp;quot;erase&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd.  The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further.  Moving along:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced &amp;quot;B.C./A.D.&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; symbols over the past decade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This claim is completely uncited.  As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== British date format becoming more common in America! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!&lt;br /&gt;
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ISO 8601 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year &amp;quot;0000&amp;quot; which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year &amp;quot;-100&amp;quot; is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Étienne Léger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Merrium websters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis.  But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Main Entry:Common Era&lt;br /&gt;
Function:noun &lt;br /&gt;
Date:1846&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 : CHRISTIAN ERA&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Entry:Christian era&lt;br /&gt;
Function:noun &lt;br /&gt;
Date:1657&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 : the period dating from the birth of Christ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main Entry:CE&lt;br /&gt;
Function:abbreviation &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 chemical engineer&lt;br /&gt;
2 civil engineer&lt;br /&gt;
3 Christian Era —  often punctuated; Common Era;   often punctuated&lt;br /&gt;
4 Corps of Engineers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --[[User:JerriahD|JerriahD]] 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Weekdays ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why this was eliminated?&lt;br /&gt;
: Those pagan names were successfully replaced only in Portuguese, due to the efforts of Martinho de Dume, roman catholic bishop of Braga (518 - 579). See, for example [http://www.portuguese-resource.co.uk/?page_id=344 this text in Portuguese] or [http://gobrazil.about.com/od/travelportuguese/qt/daynames.htm this text in English]&lt;br /&gt;
Just because it shows that Portuguese is a more Christian language than English? :-) [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:45, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Let Portugal do as it pleases, but don't bring Portuguese policy here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This has nothing to do with atheistic denial of the basis of a dating system.  And, by the way, atheists seem just fine with the pagan weekdays while they insist on erasing reference to Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I don't dispute your basic point, but in fact atheists ''have'' abolished pagan names for weekdays - at least in the past. The atheistic and socialist French Revolution instituted a calendar in which there were 12 months of 30 days each, named largely after the Parisian weather, and in which each week had ten days simply named after numbers (primidi, duodi, tridi and so on). You are totally correct that modern atheists seem more intent on removing references to Christianity than references to more primitive religions, however. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:54, 9 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General clean-up ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey everyone! I fixed some grammar issues, and generally tried to make this article more encyclopedic and 'clean.' I also added some more history about where the terms CE and AD come from; hope I helped! God bless. [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:02, 21 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;A later edition (11th)&amp;quot; in the lede ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;A later edition (11th)&amp;quot; in the lede is confusing.  Edition of what?  What did the earlier edition say?  Thanks!  [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 12:51, 11 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== AD/BC dates incorrect ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know whether or not this warrants inclusion in the article, but since the traditional AD and BC dates are known to be incorrect (with the actual birthdate for Jesus likely being some time BC), couldn't that be an argument for the use of CE and BCE by people who are Christian?  I've used it before for that reason, and I know I'm in the minority in that respect, but I feel sort of awkward calling a date after Jesus' birth (or really any date, since Christ is eternal, but that's a different thing entirely) &amp;quot;Before Christ&amp;quot;. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:05, 28 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=779307</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=779307"/>
		<updated>2010-05-19T15:04:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  Currently, CobaltFusion is between his first and second year of college, studying nursing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]], and believes, to an extent, in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User ClintonFan}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User antigun}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User nowar}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User no death penalty}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662652</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662652"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:36:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]], and believes, to an extent, in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User ClintonFan}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User antigun}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User nowar}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User no death penalty}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662649</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662649"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:35:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]], and believes, to an extent, in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User ClintonFan}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User antigun}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User nowar}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662646</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662646"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:33:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]], and believes, to an extent, in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User ClintonFan}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User antigun}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662643</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662643"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:32:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]], and believes, to an extent, in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User ClintonFan}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662641</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662641"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:29:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]] (although his personal opinions on the subject are quite a bit more complicated than those presented on this website, and much more decidedly religious).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662639</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662639"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:29:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]] (although his personal opinions on the subject are quite a bit more complicated than those presented on this website).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662636</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662636"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:22:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662635</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662635"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:20:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662634</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662634"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:20:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{User Godbigbang}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662633</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662633"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:20:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{User Godbigbang}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662632</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662632"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:19:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;br /&gt;
{User Godbigbang}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662631</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662631"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:18:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User OEC}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662630</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662630"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:17:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User comp-4}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662629</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662629"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:14:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Political Compass|-3.00|-2.87}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662626</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662626"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:03:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Userboxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{User Christian1}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662625</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662625"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:02:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, this user loves referring to himself in the third person.  Which is a sign of serious mental illness.  Take that as you will.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662624</id>
		<title>User:CobaltFusion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:CobaltFusion&amp;diff=662624"/>
		<updated>2009-05-13T01:02:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CobaltFusion: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;CobaltFusion is a registered Conservapedia editor as of May 12th, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In real life, this user is named Christopher, and lives in the western mountains of North Carolina.  As of the writing of this user page, CobaltFusion is a senior in high school, and is planning to go to a four year university in the fall to study clinical laboratory science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a personal and religious level, this user identifies himself as a Christian, although not as a fundamentalist or conservative.  CobaltFusion is an [[Old Earth Creationist]] and a believer in the idea of [[theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This user's name was inspired by the large atomic bomb from the film ''Dr. Strangelove''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If other users wish to consult CobaltFusion, then they are encouraged to do so on his talk page.  However, this user would like to inform others that he does not wish to discuss religion or politics on his talk page.  This user is here to contribute constructively to the wiki and add to articles which he deems to be important and ignored by other users.  These pages have no logical rhyme or reason, but will likely be found to deal mostly with purely historical or scientific issues.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CobaltFusion</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>