Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Michelle Obama

2010-08-02T17:44:07Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Fashion Disaster? */ new section

A good balanced rational article, tho' it does need more information.

==Court Ordered Inactive Status by a Disciplinary Agency==
Was Michelle Obama disbarred? [http://community2.myfoxorlando.com/_Obamas-Wife-Disbarred/BLOG/293883/72667.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:22, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

== "Savior" in Bold ==

Why is the word "savior" in bold? It seems clear that the quote explicitly warns against viewing any one person (including Obama) as a savior. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 22:37, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

== Fashion Disaster? ==

Perhaps you might want to cite some of the "fashion disaster" claims, especially since her favorite designer has done quite well since Michelle became first lady. Also, if you're going to argue that she is a fashion disaster, then you might not want to do it next to a picture of her looking fashionable and stately! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:44, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-07-16T17:41:18Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Adding Obama Portmanteaus */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''

----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:or one of CPs faves, [[Obamageddon]]. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:41, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

== Hollywood Values : Google hits ==

The article states that there are more than 800.000 Google hits for Hollywood values. I just wanted to point out that this applies only if you search for the term UNQUOTED, which is not always a good thing - as you also get results in which the words "Hollywood" and "values" appear in the same paragraph, regardless of whether they are associated or not. For example, you can find several articles about house VALUES in Hollywood, CA, or even in Hollywood, FL. Other articles debate about the "artistic value" of one or another Hollywood movie.
A more precise search for "Hollywood Values", QUOTED, yields about 7,500 results, but this is probably much lower than the actual incidence of the word - as phrases such as "Hollywood and its values" or "the values of Hollywood" would be excluded.
In short, the actual number is somewhere in between 800,000 and 7,500, and we have no way of knowing it for certain. As such, I think that it would probably be best not to speak about "Google Hits", or at least, not to give an exact number, as there is no way of doing it without gross inaccuracies.
By the way, I found an article that states that the term "Hollywood Values" was created by ''Times'' columnist Maureen Dowd; this might be worth a look. http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/fall2007/sewall.cfm

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-07-16T17:38:45Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Kiss of Death */ LINK FIXING

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''

----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

== Hollywood Values : Google hits ==

The article states that there are more than 800.000 Google hits for Hollywood values. I just wanted to point out that this applies only if you search for the term UNQUOTED, which is not always a good thing - as you also get results in which the words "Hollywood" and "values" appear in the same paragraph, regardless of whether they are associated or not. For example, you can find several articles about house VALUES in Hollywood, CA, or even in Hollywood, FL. Other articles debate about the "artistic value" of one or another Hollywood movie.
A more precise search for "Hollywood Values", QUOTED, yields about 7,500 results, but this is probably much lower than the actual incidence of the word - as phrases such as "Hollywood and its values" or "the values of Hollywood" would be excluded.
In short, the actual number is somewhere in between 800,000 and 7,500, and we have no way of knowing it for certain. As such, I think that it would probably be best not to speak about "Google Hits", or at least, not to give an exact number, as there is no way of doing it without gross inaccuracies.
By the way, I found an article that states that the term "Hollywood Values" was created by ''Times'' columnist Maureen Dowd; this might be worth a look. http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/fall2007/sewall.cfm

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-07-15T02:01:11Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Kiss of Death */ new section

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''

----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29|a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2010-04-08T17:51:32Z

DanieleGiusto:

The '''2012 United States Presidential Election''' when America is scheduled to pick a new president will take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. It will occur at the same time as elections to all seats in the [[House of Representatives]] and to one-third of seats in the [[Senate]]. Incumbent Democratic president [[Barack Obama]] is presumed to be seeking re-election in this election, although [[liberal]] President Lyndon Johnson did voluntarily decline to run for reelection after his poor showing the New Hampshire primary in 1968. A Republican candidate will almost certainly be elected president in 2012 and/or 2016, based on historical trends.{{Citation needed|date=April 2010}}

As yet, no Republicans or Democratic challengers have declared their candidacy. The current GOP front-runners, however, are former governors [[Sarah Palin]], [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Mike Huckabee]], Governors [[Bobby Jindal]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]], and former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]]. With Obama's declining popularity among independents, liberals, and moderates, [[Hillary Clinton]]'s public approval ratings have gained.<ref>Peter Roff, [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html A Hillary Clinton Primary Challenge to Obama in 2012?], ''USNews and World Report'', January 27, 2010. </ref>

Beginning in January 2011, candidates will signal publicly their intentions to run. Mitt Romney, for example, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission on Jan. 3, 2007, in order to seek election as president in 2008. His early commitment is credited for his ability to far out-raise the other candidates, and to earn endorsements from conservatives such as [[Rick Santorum]] and [[Marsha Blackburn]]. Of course, intentions to run are communicated privately much earlier than the public filings, so many will be lining up support and potential endorsements throughout 2010 for the 2012 presidential election.

The key early primaries are Iowa (caucuses), New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina.

== Four Segments of the Republican Party ==

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-business, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block either other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Republican Candidates for 2012 ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state
|Once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]]; his costly [[health care]] plan included mandatory insurance and became the model for ObamaCare; won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008
|Occasionally on Fox
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|More conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and popular in pivotal [[Florida]]; criticized Palin as a rival candidate might<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref>
|Could be tagged with negatives via George, which may cause him to wait until 2016
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A rising young star in Florida, a key swing state; an electrifying speaker
|Will face liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]
|On Fox in connection with Senate bid
|-
|[[Jim Demint]]
|strong support by social conservatives, libertarians<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref>, Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|a Southern conservative who will need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, [[pro-life]], superlative fundraiser
|Doubts whether she is a [[movement conservative]]; resigned early as governor; irrational [[liberal]] hatred of her.
|Promoted by Fox
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who is popular in a Democratic region and with the [[Tea Party movement]]
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/>
|On Fox as she's in the news
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office
|Effective critic of Obama
|On Fox`because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama
|Lacks essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era
|Takes not-so-conservative positions today, such as promoting a [[Con Con]]
|Promoted by Fox
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible
|Supported bigger government, released man who then killed officers
|Promoted by Fox
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in blue states
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] in 2012
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Rust Belt Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration
|Unknown nationally
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|}

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Kennedy and Reid can't stop her now, and she would be 71 if she waited until 2016; highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref>
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose as [[Martha Coakley]] did
|Disfavored on MSNBC
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|He's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives biased support from the media
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Entropy

2010-04-08T17:44:18Z

DanieleGiusto: Deleted untrue statement; Renyi and Shannon entropy are still widely researched

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will always increase over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_i^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Entropy

2010-04-07T17:43:53Z

DanieleGiusto: Added information theoretic definitions

Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by [[Lazare Carnot]] in 1803.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will always increase over time within a [[closed system]], defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

Entropy is undeniable and yet creates perhaps insurmountable difficulties for many modern theories of physics. For example, it renders time asymmetric, resulting in an [[arrow of time]] that is difficult to reconcile with the [[theory of relativity]]. Entropy casts doubt on whether physical laws or the speed of light are invariant and perpetual.

Perhaps because entropy confounds so much other contemporary theory in physics, there is very little theoretical work on entropy today.

==Definitions==
===Thermodynamic definition===
In classical [[thermodynamics]], if a small amount of energy dQ is supplied to a system from a reservoir held at temperature T, the change in entropy is given by

<math>
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

For a measurable change between two states i and f this expression integrates to

<math>
\Delta S=\int_{i}^{f}\frac{dQ}{T}
</math>

===Statistical mechanics definition 1===
If a system can be arranged in W different ways, the entropy is

<math> S= k_B \log W </math>

where <math>k_B</math> is Boltzmann's constant.

===Statistical mechanics definition 2===
Label the different states a thermodynamic system can be in by <math>i=1,2,3\ldots N</math>. If the probability of finding the system in state i is <math>p_i</math>, the entropy is

<math>
S=-k_B \sum_i^N p_i \log p_i
</math>

This definition is closely related to ideas in [[information theory]], where the definition of information content is very similar to the definition of entropy.

===Entropy in information Theory===
For a [[discrete]] [[random variable]], entropy is defined as

<math>
H(X)=-\sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P(X=x)\log_2 \left(P(X=x)\right)
</math>

For a [[continuous]] [[random variable]], the analogous description for entropy, which in this case represents the number of bits necessary to quantize a signal to a desired accuracy, is given by

<math>
h(X)=-\int_{x\in \mathcal{X}} f_X (x) \log_2 \left(f_X (x)\right)
</math>

==See also==

* [[history of entropy|History of the development of entropy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-04-07T04:26:52Z

DanieleGiusto: /* lack of a single useful device */

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)

: How so? Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy]. As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark. I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer. Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Several Clarification/Corrections ==

I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages. This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things. I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes. In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:

1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

2. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

3. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

4. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity. They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.

5. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all. It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.

6. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology. This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned. (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)

7. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant). This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).

8. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity. General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists. This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like). But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.

9. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue. It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though. The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered. But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy. But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.

10. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.

I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article. I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:REPLY BELOW:

::1. It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space". Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology? If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness. If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

::: I'll clarify the obvious. It's still a counterexample. Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.

::::You needn't be so condescending. I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included. Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed. So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Could you clarify this point? Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::2. 7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory. In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.). But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value. There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales. Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used. But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false." So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer. Hence special relativity is not violated.

:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true. Special relativity does deny non-locality.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light. Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected). Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected. (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them. Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9). It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable. Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made. I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere. I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above. All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk. I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error. And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits. If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself. And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia. If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help. I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion. If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level." However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation. I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science. Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead. I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before. We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page. This will take a fair amount of discussion. I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale. One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.

[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point. There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.

::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above. We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it. But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics. They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''. GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project. I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them. If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article. I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

== Curvature of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon. I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion. And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds). The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth. "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Reversion was necessary for two reasons: first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now. But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far. There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements. Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification. In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::You deleted valid information. Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them. The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims. Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above. You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make. But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either. On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM? (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be. For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM. Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all. Does string theory? Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM. ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''. Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''? ''The quantum of a gravitational field.'' Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum. And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is? It doesn't require the fictional gravitons. Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself. It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution. The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present. Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it. The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here. I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not. (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.) This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy. Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness. But there's no way around the basic problem: GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model. Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I still don't understand what you're saying. The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic. (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.) But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example. If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

James O'Keefe

2010-03-09T20:05:14Z

DanieleGiusto:

James O'Keefe is an independent [[American]] [[journalist]] from Westwood, [[New Jersey]]. He is notable for producing the undercover videos exposing ACORN's corruption and Planned Parenthood's racism and pro-abortion stance.

== Planned Parenthood ==

In 2006, O'Keefe had Lila Rose, a pro-life advocate, go to [[Planned Parenthood]] and pose as a pregnant teenager while O'Keefe secretly taped. The staff attempted to persuade Lila to lie about her age so that she could be eligible for an abortion. When the tape was released, [[Tennessee]] lawmakers voted to end a $721,000 contract with Planned Parenthood.

In 2007, O'Keefe recorded audio of a visit to Planned Parenthood where he posed as a donor. He requested that his [[donation]] would fund [[abortions]] only for minorities, to which Planned parenthood vice-president Autumn Kersey laughed and said it was understandable. When the audio was released, Kersey was suspended and Planned Parenthood apologized for their staff's actions.

== ACORN ==

O'Keefe, along with [[Hannah Giles]], posed as a pimp and a prostitute at many ACORN offices asking for housing arrangements to run their human smuggling business while secretly video taping everything. Unsurprisingly, the ACORN staff gave advice, despite being told by the pair that they planned to smuggle young girls from El Salvador. Even more shocking is that the pair was given advice on how to avoid paying taxes on the smuggled girls income. Video excerpts were released, which resulted in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voting to end all federal funding of ACORN. The [[U.S. Senate]], the [[IRS]], and the [[Census Bureau]] also all voted to end funding for [[ACORN]].

==Arrest==
In January 2010, O'keefe was arrested along with two friends for conspiring to tamper with Senator Mary Landrieu's office phones. He faces up to 10 years behind bars and a quarter million dollar fine. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/26/acorn-antagonist-arrested-senate-phone-scheme]
[[category:Journalism]]

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2010-03-04T23:39:19Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Ronald Reagan Jr. an atheist */ new section

== Photo ==

'''If someone is there who has had luck uploading image files here, please replace that unviewable picture with the following, please? Thanks!''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

http://www.nndb.com/people/359/000022293/reagan.jpg

:Done. I can't upload it though, as the page is protected. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] [[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 05:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

I'm a little confused. I see why many of Undelia's edits were removed, but why the part about Reagan opposing government aid to the poor? Isn't that a component of opposing big government, trying to cut welfare programs that would benefit the poor? I don't think that all of Undelia's edits should have been removed wholesale, since some of what was added seems factually accurate.

== Why do you dislike my references? ==

Why were my edits unceremoniously and completely undone? Most of the edits were adding book citations so that claims were supported by some sort of sources. Does Conservapedia dislike facts and evidence? Or does it just dislike citations to viewpoints that don't harmonize with its own narrow agenda?

The question of whom to credit for the end of communism is a major one for historians and scholars. And there are a lot of scholars (I would say it's an accurate characterization to say most scholars) who disagree with those who credit Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. I would've thought Conservapedia of all places would've appreciated trying to teach the controversy in a fairly even-handed way. Providing references to the "other side" in this debate doesn't strike me as contrary to Conservapedia's purportedly educational mission.

Obviously Conservapedia has its own conservative bias, which it is proud to wear on its sleeve. However, where I'm "biased" is that I'm not satisfied with assertions lacking grounding in sources. But it seems like Conservapedia is undermining its own objective of being "educational" by eschewing sound scholarly practices of documentation, references and -- gasp! -- presenting multiple sides of an issue, all so it can engage in unsubstantiated opinion. Wikipedia, for all its faults, likely would not arbitrarily remove several references and citations. One of their major flags, after all, is for articles with unsourced statements. Such articles appear endemic to Conservapedia, which one could attribute simply to it being so new and experiencing rapid growth, but given the way this particular entry has been butchered by administrators, it looks like unsourced statements might simply be official policy.

You do a great disservice to potential users by not only tolerating but encouraging such slipshod methods of scholarship. More than anything else, this will cause large numbers of people to reject the information in Conservapedia ''prima facie,'' and will lead more people to trust Wikipedia because it at least appears to uphold more rigorous standards. While I haven't prevented students explicitly from using Wikipedia (though I've strongly discouraged its use and urged them to consider its problems as a source), you have me leaning toward banning the use of Conservapedia outright, because the standards appear so low as to not even warrant further discussion.

Also, in simply removing my edits wholesale, I should point out that you removed several minor changes that had no business being expunged. For instance, adding "was born" in the sentence about how "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois ..." Also, I corrected the capitalization of "American president," since "president" (like other titles) should only be capitalized when used as an appositive before a proper name (e.g. President Lincoln, but Lincoln was elected president). See a style guide (Strunk and White, Chicago, etc.) for more on that.

: Please sign your comments if you can, using the signature button, so we know with whom we're speaking. Thanks.

: I did revert this entry because it tried to take credit away for Reagan for the fall of communism. I apologize if other edits were also removed in the reversion (rollback), but such is the nature of the Wiki software.

: We welcome well-supported facts here. We don't censor alternative views. But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::So what you're saying is that you don't censor alternative views, as long as they acknowledge that you're right? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Rekjavik, the Freeze, and the fall of Communism==

:: Well, no. It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit. One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president. Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best. However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations. Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual. It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes. That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well Jack, we have cites to demonstrate Reagans Defense spending in the early 80s virtually spent the Soviet Union out of existence, because they could not keep up. Gorbachav has virtually admitted as much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have cites that say Reagan's spending extended the length of the Soviet Union's existence, I have cites that say internal social movements in the Eastern Bloc ended the Soviet Union, I have cites that the Peace movement in the United States was what brought about the changes in Reagan's attitude change that led to his willingness to open up negotiation space. However, I wouldn't make the claim that any of these provide the strongest explanatory power. Having cites doesn't confirm or disconfirm anything, it only provides one plausible explanation for an event. Selective citing is just as biased as no citing at all and, in fact, is more academically dishonest.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, when I say I have cites, I don't mean it in the common Wikipedia sense of WP:V that any lie anybody told somewhere so long as it got in print is a valid citation. Not at all. I'm refering to a credible witness who has been properly vetted to stand up against cross examination. And I wouldn't make the reference if it were not so. Junk science, for example, does not qualify as a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Neither do passing observations. And people who are directly involved in an event will sometimes hold the most biased explanation for how that event happened. (By the way how does someone virtually admit as much?) Especially when you are talking about huge sociopolitical changes. Behavior is complicated, especially political behavior and, like I said before, monocausal explanations are generally weak.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That Soviet Communism was pathologically ill and doomed to an end sooner or later there's no question; indeeed, Ronald Reagan may have been the only guy in America who saw that & believed it in 1980. And he certainly hastened it's demise. What's more, many who opposed him, actively sought to prop up the existing status quo. And here the Nuke Freeze Movement suspects we can cite in particular. If they had their way, the Soviet Union would still exist and all the Nuclear weapons would still be '''frozen''', intact. They cannot pretend now that they did not take those positions, or hold those views, then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you would enjoy reading the book the Reagan Reversal by Betsey Lamb (I think). It is very favorable to Reagan but does a good job breaking through some of the myths about him that are propogated by both the left and the right. BTW, Ronald Reagan wasn't the only one to recognize that in 1980 and his policies after 1983 were in many ways more in line with the Freeze movement than it was with the Arms hawks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 12:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: On that question, the Reykjavik summit is key; while widely reported as a failure, it really was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, and the begining of the cooperative agreements that came later. Gorby basically was begging for an opportunity for Soviet institutions to survive through perestroika, and when he walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. The Jackson Hole signing between Baker & Shevardnadze was the death warrant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*I will find you the sourcing, Rob...but Reykjavik was a calculated gamble, quite deliberate on Reagan's part. Besides, he said when home, he had a terrible sinus and was testy. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gorby came to Reykjavik holding absolutely no cards. Unlike Khurschev's bravado, all Gorby could do was plead for time to let Perestroika work, cause everyone knew if 100% of the Soviet economy had been shifted to defense spending, it ''still'' could not compete with Reagans defense build-up and next genreation Stars Wars etc. When Gorby walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where's your evidence? ==

An interesting approach to documentation and sourcing. You accept a hypothesis (in this case that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War), then refuse to tolerate any alternative explanations, no matter how well grounded. You claim that such "liberal" views require substantiation, and yet, when substantiation for them is offered, you excise the substantiation altogether. I'll note that no documentation whatsoever is offered in support of the hypothesis that Reagan brought the end of communism in Eastern Europe.

I should add that "liberal" is a very misleading and damning characterization of these views, since the thesis that Reagan wasn't responsible for the fall of communism derives more from any number of factors in which Reagan had no bearing whatsoever. The references provided and then unceremoniously removed without explanation explain these in more detail.
For instance, Jan Kubik's work on the emergence of civil society and Solidarity in Poland shows how important the Catholic Church and especially the election of a Polish pope, John Paul II, helped to galvanize opposition in Poland. The pope's first visit to Poland in June 1979 provided a major source of inspiration and rehearsal for the opposition and the blossoming of civil society. The fruits of that emerged in the summer of 1980, when a wave of strikes gave birth to Solidarity, the independent trade union that played a major role in undermining Communist authority in Poland, and also in fostering opposition in other parts of Eastern Europe. You'll note that John Paul II became pope in 1978 and Solidarity emerged in August 1979, both of which occurred long before Reagan became president. Moreover, the work of Solidarity had little support from the United States, or from outside of Poland in general. Much of the limited American support lent to Solidarity (and I place emphasis on the idea that it was limited and had little bearing on Solidarity) actually came from the AFL-CIO, which provided some funding and supplies (things like printing presses). Even though Solidarity was forced underground when Poland came under martial law in December 1981, it continued to exist and function as an illegal organization, and civil society continued to develop beyond it. The reemergence of Solidarity in early 1989 came not as the product of external factors, but rather from a recurrence of the persistent economic problems that dogged the Communist regime throughout its existence. The regime reached out to Solidarity. To the extent that pressures from without even played a role, these would've been marginal, and would have emanated mainly from the Kremlin. But, in truth, even that was negligible, since Moscow did little more than to tell the Polish regime that it was on its own.

Similarly, works by Timothy Garton Ash, Gale Stokes and Vladimir Tismaneanu point to the systemic weaknesses of communism within Poland. Some of the important factors they cite are economic weaknesses and a growing crisis of legitimacy that prevented Communist regimes from persisting in hardline methods of repression. At the same time, these factors also led to the genesis of opposition movements within Eastern Europe (groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the Prayers for Peace in East Germany).

The United States and Ronald Reagan don't receive credit in these explanations not due to pervasive "liberal bias," but rather because these factors that are seen as more important (and I should add as someone who has read widely in the scholarship, these are the most commonly cited explanations for the collapse of communism) and the role of the United States or of Ronald Reagan could only have been peripheral at best. It was limited largely to symbolic acts (such as Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall), but even these symbolic acts were directed more at the West and American constituents than at the people living in Communist countries.

I believe this very point was made in one of the edits that an administrator purged.

To give primary credit to Ronald Reagan or the United States for the end of the Cold War would to engage in staggering ignorance of the domestic and systemic factors that undermined Communist regimes, and to marginalize unfairly the many ordinary people and dissidents in Eastern Europe who helped to bring down communism from within. In addition, Reagan in particular deserves little credit for these developments because he was relatively late to the scene. The systemic factors, and in many cases the opposition movements as well, long predated Reagan's presidency, which had little bearing on them.

Now, call me biased, but I think that offers a very well-developed and -substantiated account of other explanations for the end of communism. Nothing in that strikes me as excessively "liberal." Indeed, the only "liberal" thing about it is that it doesn't engage in the same sort of pooh-poohing of Reagan that blindly credits him without offering substantiation.

If someone cares to offer more substantive reasons (citing references for this explanation would be a welcome change) for why Reagan deserves credit, then this entry and discussion can go somewhere.

But simply asserting that Reagan ended communism because you said so, then placing the onus on critics of this position to refute it using evidence, and then suppressing evidence that contradicts the ''a priori'' thesis/assertion: this doesn't exactly give Conservapedia's entry the ring of truth, or much in the way of credibility for that matter.

It would seem, based on the actions taken with respect to edits on this entry, that Conservapedia's "educational" mission would be more accurately described as disseminating conservative propaganda rather than presenting facts and seeking "truth."

You may castigate me for propagating a "liberal" viewpoint, but my true "bias" is that I like some sort of substantiation for sweeping generalizations and disputed claims. I merely attempted to present the alternate explanations that are mostly widely accepted among experts and scholars. You can criticize those groups for "liberal bias," but as I've made clear, there's nothing inherently liberal in these approaches. Moreover, a better response would be to offer your own facts and sources to support your claims, rather than engaging in knee-jerk censorship of someone who deigns to cite references and offer substantiation.

And your request for a signature is laughable. It has echoes of "Big Brother," and given the fascistic censorship witnessed in this article, I'd rather not risk being unceremoniously blocked for not blindly toeing the party line. The truth may not be determined democratically, but the authoritarian methods on display in Conservapedia have proven no more reliable.

-- "Karol Wojtyla"
::: None of us are perfect, probably all of us have overlooked signing our edits or our discussion at some time or another. But it is common procedure and helpful in discussion. Even months later, it is helpful in reading through a discussion to see who is making what points in what sequence. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I made the edits turning "most" into "some" and "other". The reason being is that it is more accurate to say that than to claim "most historians". There is plenty of literature that supports the claim that Reagan's willingness to meet the Soviets expansion-by-proxy and military buildup forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could ill-afford, and that this helped to break an already-faltering Soviet economy. There is also plenty of personal commentary from citizens of the former Soviet client-states who say that Reagan's opposition to the Communists gave them hope.

Your entry wasn't expunged; your points are still there. Personally, I think they '''are''' valid ones and that you simply overstated the level of agreement amongst historians.

I hope this helps you to understand why I made what I considered to be minor edits. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed, although I'd still like to see some references for the literature that credits Reagan's policies. But I would add that there's substantial agreement, at least among historians who study the Eastern bloc, on the question of whether Reagan's role was that important. Reagan appears very little in that literature, so I'm wondering where the sources/references are that give him so much credit. After all, the Second Commandment says sources must always be credited and cited. We can continue to debate those sources on the discussion page, but I think the bigger point is that there's no widely accepted monocausal explanation for the end of communism, so it would be more appropriate to provide sources for the different theses, and to also expound on those interpretations. In other words, rather than simply saying "Reagan ended the Cold War," someone needs to elaborate on the reasoning behind that. Otherwise, it violates the Sixth Commandment (don't give personal opinions in entries).

:I agree with your central contention - there is no monocausal explanation for the fall of Communism. There were several separate forces that converged to break a flawed system. In fairness, though, I think that if you re-read this article you'll see it is more even-handed than you give it credit for. Most every single acclamation given to Reagan is qualified. And, as I pointed out before, your alternate sources were not deleted.

:I would go so far as to say that, for a Conservative site, it is close to the most balanced article on the site. Perhaps you would like to write an article on the Fall of Communism that explores the other causes? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

My apologies to Dave3172. I wasn't accusing you of censorship. Rather, it was an earlier iteration of this page [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=22986]], which user Aschlafly rolled back wholesale. In that iteration, there were several references to texts supporting some of the alternative explanations for the fall of communism. While Dave3172 is right to note that the fall of communism would warrant an entry unto itself, what seemed more inappropriate was Aschlafly's decision to expunge many book citations (the earlier version was even more substantiated than the current version), with his stated reason:

"But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does."

User Aschlafly refuses to accept that, contrary to his personal opinion, the question of Reagan's credit for the end of communism is, in fact, unresolved. As other users have also tried to indicate, there are a wealth of alternative explanations that don't lend support to the "credit Reagan" thesis. And, at least in scholarly circles, it could be argued that there is substantial agreement that Reagan was not the primary or even a significant factor.

What I think is lacking for this entry, and would be worthy of inclusion on a separate entry for the fall of communism as well, would be some substantiation for the argument that Reagan deserves credit. As the article currently stands, and at least in the various iterations I've seen previously, it hasn't provided any support for this argument, aside from the anecdotal evidence of Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall, the importance of which, I might add, seemed more to bolster Reagan's standing as a Cold Warrior and anticommunist in the West, rather than to make any significant impact on developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain (a point I recall seeing in an earlier, since censored version of this entry).

I'm not the one to provide such documentation. Frankly, in my studies of this question (and it was a subfield for one of my M.A. exams, so I've read in the scholarly literature quite extensively) I'm yet to encounter anyone who has presented a very extensive or, in my opinion, compelling argument for crediting Reagan. I am generally familiar with some of the reasons conservatives have given in support of the "credit Reagan" thesis, which user Dave3172 recounted above. But I have not encountered and cannot think offhand of what sorts of books, articles and other sources might lay out this argument at greater length. I would strongly encourage someone -- anyone -- to present those reasons more lucidly. As a teacher, I want to present my students with as many different interpretations as possible, and with the reasoning behind such arguments, so I can teach them to evaluate claims and sources more effectively. It would only be appropriate to include such material in Conservapedia, and I would think that especially on Conservapedia there would be contributors better able to provide that dimension of the debate.

As it stands, I do agree with user Dave3172 that the Reagan entry is rather even-handed and balanced. And in general I think the two of us are on the same page in terms of what we'd like to see.

But as a matter of course, I think it's always better to have too many references rather than too few. This is especially true for encyclopedias. In my mind, an encyclopedia should serve as a quick reference for basic facts, but also as a mere starting point for finding more extensive treatments of various issues and questions. Even if an editor happens to doubt the credibility of a source, it's better to allow users to know what sources are being used and to enable users to access those sources and make assessments of their credibility for themselves. If only more people learned those skills and the ability to read critically, and with a healthy skepticism, my job as an educator would be infinitely easier.

The real source of my aggravation lies in user Aschlafly's cavalier attitude toward sources and evidence that don't support his personal opinions. And while such attitudes are bound to be endemic on any wiki (whether Wikipedia or Conservapedia), which was part of the stated reason for the launch of Conservapedia, I find it troubling that Aschlafly of all users, as a founder or administrator of Conservapedia (if I understand correctly) is engaging in precisely the same behaviors that Conservapedia's founders deemed so troubling and problematic in Wikipedia. It just strikes me as highly hypocritical for user Aschlafly to be just as guilty of censoring viewpoints with which he disagrees.

-- "KW"

== Evidence that Reagan helped to end the Cold War. ==

I assume this stuff is copyrighted, so I'll just give names and page numbers. These aren't historians, mind you - they're witnesses to history.

Margaret Thatcher on Reagan's impact with ending the Cold War "Statecraft" p. 10-11.
Also included in this passage is testimony from the last Soviet Foreign Minister Alexandr Bessemertnykh.

A quote from Lech Walesa, leader of Solidiarity on the back of Peter Schweinzer's book, "Reagan's War."

I can provide more evidence, if necessary.

By the way, when the Soviet Union imposed martial law on Poland because of Solidarity, Reagan did take crucial action, and the results can not be underestimated. He revoked Poland's most favored nation trading status, which meant Polish goods faced a high tariffs on exports to the US. Most importantly, he banned the sale of oil and gas technologies to the USSR. Both of these actions put tremendous pressure on the Soviets to settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans.

You got that last part absolutely wrong. The Soviet government didn't impose martial law on Poland. The Polish regime of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared it because the alternative was to watch its own collapse and allow Poland to descend into complete chaos. The Soviets were not a factor -- repeat: not a factor -- in the end to the Solidarity crisis. In fact, we now know based on documents in archives in Warsaw and Moscow that have become available since the fall of communism that the Kremlin was prepared to allow Poland to "go its own way" in 1981. This was not Moscow's preference, for obvious reasons, but after Soviet leaders assessed the likely outcome of a crackdown (a la Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979), they ruled out the military option. Some of the reasoning behind this was that Soviet leaders feared the repercussions of intervention, which they surmised would have brought an end to detente. However, equally important was their conviction that the Poles would fight back, and that the Polish Army could not be trusted to remain loyal to the Communist regime in the event of a Soviet invasion. The decision to crack down on Solidarity was left entirely to the Polish leadership. (For more elaboration on this, see Vojtech Mastny's article "The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980-1981 and the End of the Cold War," and Matthew Ouimet's "The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy.")

The irony, of course, was that the West widely believed (rather erroneously, as we now know) that Moscow had been calling the shots in Poland. So, despite the fact that it hadn't ordered the crackdown and resigned itself to the possibility of a non-Communist Poland, the Kremlin still faced the loss of benefits that had come with detente.

I'm also perplexed by your claim that the end of the legal Solidarity movement (and it's much more accurately characterized as an independent trade union and opposition movement than a strike, since hundreds of strikes occurred in this period in Poland) saw the Soviets "settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans." Martial law was about the last thing the Reagan White House would've wanted. Or perhaps the next-to-last thing, since only a direct Soviet invasion of Poland could have been worse from an American standpoint.

However, even if you point to the end of detente and the economic hardships this brought to the Soviet Union as a major causal factor in the fall of communism, it's still debatable how much credit Reagan deserves for that. Many of the moves in that direction, such as the end of American food relief to the Soviet Union, had been initiated by Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and prior to Reagan's presidency. Under Reagan those policies may have been pursued to an even greater degree, though it is likely that, had he won a second term in office, Carter would have followed much the same course (especially if you recall that his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a Pole). Much of the basis for crediting Reagan with the collapse of communism seems to dwell on his outspoken opposition to communism, and to having been in the right place at the right time. Given the array of systemic weaknesses, the developing opposition movements and the long-brewing crises that culminated in East-Central Europe in 1989, and in the Soviet Union over the following two years, it is highly probable that communism would have collapsed roughly when it did regardless of who lived in the White House in the 1980s.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing the verbatim quote from Walesa. A professor said that Walesa gave a talk in Seattle some years ago where one of the audience members asked him if he thought Reagan or Gorbachev deserved the most credit for the collapse of communism. Walesa replied, "No, it was the Holy Father!" by which he meant Pope John Paul II (since Catholics refer to the pontiff as the Holy Father). So from the perspective on someone who obviously "witnessed" (and also shaped) history, you can see what people on the ground thought.

-- "KW"

==McCarthy reference==
Reagan tesitified in 1947 before the HUAC -- even before the Hiss & White episodes; McCarthy didn't produce his list til 1950, and was a Senate Committee. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Flipping through some of the history pages, I see that PraiseTheLard mentioned Reagan's role as head of SAG in blacklisting supposed Hollywood Communists. However, I notice that this was repeatedly removed by other editors.

My question: why? This really happened, and I don't think the facts are in dispute. Thus, shouldn't it be included in an entry on Reagan, especially as it was one of the more notable (or notorious, depending on one's perspective) things he did in the years before he became governor*, and it can be seen as a stepping stone to politics, as well as an early sign of his zealotry as a Cold Warrior.

* Unless, of course, you consider the classic Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) to meet these criteria. But it's already in the entry under miscellanea.

:Why? Yes, Reagan did testify in 1947 regarding subversive communist influence in SAG; Joe McCarthy started his investigations in 1950 of government employees and contractors doing business with government. Now, unlike Wikipedia, we can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, for several months I was in dispute resolution over things like people who died in 1948, 2 years before McCarthy, who nevertheless were victims of McCarthyism. Or all the atomic physicists who ended up on the Hollywood Blacklist. Or McCarthy, who never served in the House, sat on the House Un-America Activities Committee. Now these are quite simply facts any child has access to, nonetheless, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to allow some of this information into the sum total of human knowledge. So unless you can somehow prove that 1947 = 1950, Ronald Reagan in no way shape or form can be said to have any conection with "McCarthyism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

* If you read my comment on the removal more carefully, you'd notice that I never mentioned McCarthy or McCarthyism (I had nothing to do with the edits that included and removed that information, which is why I was questioning the actions of those involved). What I was trying to call attention to (and clearly failed to do so) was why information on Reagan's anticommunist activities, such as his role in blacklisting people in Hollywood for alleged Communist sympathies, was removed. What I suggested ought to have happened was that the incorrect information linking Reagan to McCarthyism could have been removed, but the other information outlining his anticommunist activities in conjunction with SAG and the Hollywood Blacklist should have been retained. Something about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- "KW"

:KW, Thanks for the clarification. There is much confusion regarding the so-called Hollywood blacklist. What you find is (A) deliberate efforts to cite HUAC as the source of the blacklist (B) deliberate efforts and distortions to cite McCarthy as serving on HUAC at the time.

:The simple fact of the matter is (A) the "blacklisted" actors and writers were blacklisted by the MPAA (the same group that issues movie ratings and the Oscars); (B) the US government '''did not''' blacklist the Hollywood actors; (C) McCarthy's Committee, which had nothing to do with the blacklist in the first place, would not possess legal authority to investigate anyway. McCarthy's Committee only had legal jurisdiction to investigate the US Government or government contractors.

:Now, it is argued that some Hollywood films had business relationships with the US Government in the making of films in WWII. Yes, this is true. To that extent, if there were a pretext to investigate Hollywood studios, screenwriters, and actors who were acting as government contractors, why ''didn't'' McCarthy investigate them.

:Needless to say, unravelling the a half century of deliberate distortions and deceptions is messy indeed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:''P.S. Reagans credentials as an anti-Communist aren't really something we need to speculate about; attempts to "link" Reagan to some of the unpleasant aspects of "McCarthyism" is something we need to be concerned about.''

*'''Something our younger members might want to keep in mind, it is totally ''revisionist thinking'' to view the House Un-American Activities Committee, its investigations and Congressman McCarthy as evil. I think the genocide of the Soviet Communist Party, and its leaders are very well documented. So are the hundreds of spies sent to the U.S. It is a proven fact that many true-believers, as opposed to those who were easily mislead or naive, did actively get jobs in the film industry. What you know today as "transparency" didn't exist in the 50's and 60's. Nuclear bombs were new to us, the leader of the Soviet Union announced on TV that they would "bury" us. These are things you need to take into consideration when examining the period.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 19:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Can we limit the speculation and the removal of facts/sources to include unsubstantiated opinion? ==

Someone earlier today inserted a line at the end of the survey of various interpretations of the end of communism to the effect of "Nevertheless, Reagan was the personal driving force behind the fall of communism." Given the multitude of other interpretations presented in this article and elsewhere on the talk page, it seemed inappropriate to add that line as a way of denying the existence of controversy in this debate and asserting a personal opinion as manifest fact. As it stands, and as I reverted it, the article never claimed that any single interpretation was "right." Instead, the main idea (and what I would hope would be more important for an encyclopedia) is that the issue is not clear cut, and to present the basic contours of the debate.

Similarly, I noticed that a user changed the section on the presidential legacy regarding SDI/Star Wars, removing the information about how the principle of atmospheric-based missile defense (the foundation of SDI) has never been tested successfully. Moreover, the same user changed the line that said (and I paraphrase from memory), "Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking." In its place, the new line (again, I paraphrase) said simply that "SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage against the Soviet Union." Any notion that the existence of leverage is disputed was summarily excised.

While I understand that many (most?) of the users of Conservapedia likely believe Reagan to have been the driving force behind the end of the Cold War, and to have though that SDI brought the Soviet Union to its knees and spurred the collapse of communism, I underline that these are only individual opinions. They may be based on certain sources, but they remain interpretations and not cut-and-dry facts. At the very least, there should be documentation and evidence to support these sorts of assertions. But I also think that, given the level of contention over these questions in academic and political debates, a better approach for Conservapedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is to present the controversy and the various sides, rather than unilaterally presenting one perspective as absolute fact.

It's my understanding that this was a major motivation for creating Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, to include viewpoints that were being summarily removed on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting alternative viewpoints, but I think what's essential to give Conservapedia any broad credibility is to not provide '''only''' the viewpoints lacking on Wikipedia, but to present all the viewpoints. If you only want to present certain viewpoints, well, it is called Conservapedia, but you should probably stop claiming to be encyclopedic in nature.

'''**Reagan, while President of SAG, opposed Communist infilteration of the guilds in Hollywood, however he was also instrumental in fighting for actors who were painted by McCarthy's broad brush, and got their names removed. He did just that in helping a young actress, Nancy Davis, who he eventually married.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good observations. With reference to,
::''"Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking."''
:the subtle thing said here is trying to separate "conservatives" from "most analysts", i.e. moderate or manistream. Facts are so-called "conservative analysts" are very mainstream given the subject under discussion. The so-called "moderate analysts", or others this referes to, are journalists and opinion makers, not defense policy analysts. This sort of subtlety needs to be watched for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: But I think you're falsely interpreting a statement that says "many conservatives" to exclude conservatives from or the "mainstream." Perhaps the issue was in the paraphrase I believe the exact language said something to the effect of "many political scientists and historians," or "scholars," or something a bit more specific. But when I said "analysts," I meant this merely as a shorthand for a variety of groups, which included many relevant scholars, and did not mean it in the narrow sense of defense policy analysts. I certainly don't think defense analysts had a monopoly on wisdom or insight regarding Soviet policymaking. We know from documents and materials available after the fact that as much as analysts and observers got right, they also got many things wrong. And this assessment applies equally to academics, scholars, journalists, politicians and opinion makers as it does to defense experts, policy analysts, etc. Likewise, I meant policymaking in a broad sense for the Soviet case, having in mind domestic political and economic policies as much as military and foreign policies. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In fact, here is the verbatim passage: "While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the Soviet Union, most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount."

:: I think you'll agree that the language here is much less problematic. And while there are undoubtedly Reagan supporters in the ranks of political scientists and historians, I think it's accurate to suggest that more of them aren't Reagan supporters than are.

::Anyway, my apologies for having been lazy and not citing the exact passage earlier, which I think was a source of much confusion. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''most political scientists and historians note that...."
:::How about, ''many [or some] political scientists and historians are of the opinion that ...'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am somewhat skeptical of citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction, when quoting Soviet citizens, who were or are a part of that government, being as their vested interest is in denigrating any accomplishments by Reagan. Likewise the part about military service, which I removed, was completely inaccurate, in that it failed to mention that he did indeed enlist, was an officer, and contributed to the raising of millions of 1940's Dollars on behalf of the war effort. Likewise his fighting of the black lists, which his own future wife, Nancy Davis was put on. Cannot the Sysops here block this highly inaccurate and troubling information being listed? It troubles me users cannot contact anyone about this, in a easily identified manner. Someone put up these web pages, it belongs to someone. Someone is ultimately responsible, no? If not, perhaps I need to refer all this BS to the likes of Ed Meese or Mike Deever, for rebuttal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan actually served ''two'' non-contiguous active military stints, if I recall. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Reagan entered military service in 1942 and served for three years in the U.S. Army, for which he made training films, and he was discharged with the rank of captain. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 10:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Reagan states in his 1965 autobiography [http://www.biblio.com/books/28287897.html] he served in the Cavalry, confirmed here [http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25513&page=51 Ronald Reagan, Cavalry Lt/USAAF Capt, FMPU; personnel officer 9th AF]; Peggy Noonan likeqwise cites it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me what was "inaccurate" or "troubling" in saying that Reagan, as head of SAG, was involved in naming members of the film industry on the Hollywood Blacklist? He was involved. He answered questions in HUAC hearings and kept the FBI informed about "disloyal" members of his union. These are facts.[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html] I can't assess the veracity of the statement that Reagan also tried to shield actors victimized by McCarthy, which would certainly make Reagan's a complex and difficult-to-read character.

But the main points to make are 1) nothing in the statement that Reagan played at least a contributing role (by testifying before HUAC, informing the FBI, etc.) in the Hollywood Blacklist is factually inaccurate; 2) if Reagan ''did'' try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis, then it needs to be cited (see the Conservapedia commandment if you're unclear on the reason why); 3) whatever role Reagan may have played in vindicating those unjustly accused by McCarthy, it still doesn't make it any less true to note that earlier he played a part in the anticommunist persecution of individuals who wound up blacklisted in Hollywood.

Also, I find it maddeningly ignorant and offensive to make such a blanket statement as to claim broad skepticism regarding the ability of "citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction," whether quoting Soviet citizens, or in any other context. First, I don't know why the whole "immediately distrust foreigners" is even relevant to this discussion, or to the edits on the Reagan article. Second, ignorance, like wisdom, knows no national boundaries. Americans hold a monopoly on neither. You can love this country and think it's the greatest in the world, but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing the intelligence of non-Americans, or the ignorance of many Americans. Rather than making such a blanket condemnation, try to point to specific examples of bias, ignorance or what have you, instead of speaking in such vague generalizations. -- "KW"

::Ok, so by Reagan giving testimony to HUAC, then a separate non-governmental entity, the Motion Picture Association of America blacklists actors, that makes Reagan "involved". Whereas in fact, the actual involvement of the MPAA is suspect, because it appears to be coincidental that the members of MPAA are the ones who refused to extend contracts, not the MPAA itself.
:::''Reagan did try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis...''
::I beleive you may be misusing the term "McCarthyism here; and can you provide a cite for the specific reference. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

*By the way, HUAC stands for "House Un-American Activities Committee" '''which was an official body of the United States Congress'''. It was Chaired by Congressman Joesph McCarthy, of Wisconson. As for extending contracts, the motion picture studios are the true villians here, in caving into pressure from the Congress. Not excusing Congress's actions but it wasn't the Government refusing the contracts.--[[User:TK|TK]] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You make my point for me. It is ignorant, in the extreme, to give half-answers as "fact" like about Reagan's testimony before the HUAC, without explaining further, his other actions. To ignore, or leave them out is bias indeed. It proves my point, because most anyone from the Untited States, politically involved, knows the story about how Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis!! You are using clearly liberal, left of center sourcing material, and passing it off as fact, just because you provided a source. Go to moveon.org, and you can get those types of "facts". You have a very revisionist view, imo, almost of someone too young to remember, prersonally, the period. It was not considered heinous at that time, to oppose Communist infiltration of the entertainment industry, and while most people did not agree with McCarthy's tactics, they did not oppose the goal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My omission of the story about how Ronald met Nancy was based on ignorance, yes. I didn't know the story behind it, but that doesn't reflect willful or malicious neglect on my part. I couldn't tell you how any president met his wife, which is more a product of my priorities, or "bias," as you term it: I simply don't care much for personal gossip of any sort. There, you know my personal "bias" regarding the matter at hand.

::But, again, if I made an omission, then the correct move on your part is to correct it by '''adding the missing fact, not expunging other facts that don't tell the story you like.''' That's all I requested. I don't profess omniscience, and I'm certainly not an expert on the intricacies of the Reagans' courtship. But since you apparently have knowledge of that and consider it so essential to the story of his involvement with HUAC, then add that to the entry and share your particular wisdom with everyone. Balance is a good thing, and that's what I was trying to urge you to provide. Obviously I want as complete a picture as possible, but I also don't know every side of the story, and I know I don't know.

::And you're right that I don't have personal recollections of the period. However, my age or experience make my contributions no less valid. I don't discount the very real sense of fear and terror that pervaded the era. But while you might consider this a hindrance or claim this forces me into "revisionism," I can respond by saying that your personal experiences and recollections dooms you to your own "bias," in that you evidently feel like you have a stake in the matter, whereas I didn't have anything to gain or lose based on its outcome. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" or more "objective." It's just a way of noting that no one is immune from bias, and that bias takes a number of forms. This, among many other reasons, is why I place such emphasis on including as many different dimensions as possible. Clearly you have a perspective that I don't, but your perspective might cause you to focus on certain things to the exclusion of other factors that seem noteworthy to me. Why not use our different perspectives to mutual advantage? -- "KW"

:::I think you confuse this place for Wikipedia. This is the Conservative version. Therefore like values are tensed more than those which oppose, otherwise what is this place for? I also think you mistake personal things for purely historical ones. I am not making you, personally less valid, however this place is the place for debating your personal ideas, and the failure to go the extra mile and inform the people who will use this as a resource, of the whole story, not a fragment of it. You are using, in my opinion, the same tired liberal sources those of us in the States have grown to mistrust. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Evidently I confused this place for an encyclopedia interested in facts. I see you arbitrarily removed the information about how Honecker could and did ignore Gorbachev's entreaties for reform. The fact that several Soviet troops were stationed in East Berlin was quite ancillary to the issue at question, namely the status of the Berlin Wall. Were, as you (or whoever added the line about the Soviet troops) suggested, Gorbachev to have exercised military pressure on Honecker to reform, he would've ceased to be a reformer. You can't force through those sorts of liberalizing measures through violent and oppressive measures. The French Revolution attempted that, and in ended in the Reign of Terror and, later, with military rule under Napoleon. Your decision to willy-nilly ignore the realities of internal dynamics, both within the Eastern bloc and within individual countries of the bloc, makes your own ''opinion'' regarding the importance of Gorbachev (and what he potentially could have done) to the fall of the Berlin Wall exceedingly groundless and unsubstantiated. Even though the first incarnation of the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 with Soviet assistance, this was what the East German government at the time wanted as well, in order to triage the massive population loss and brain drain of East Germans who went to West Berlin and from there to the West. Those desires held true into 1989, and it was only when popular pressures began to mount within East German for opening the borders that things began to change. Moreover, the fall of the Wall itself was not the product of deliberate policy on anyone's part; on November 9, 1989, the party head in Berlin read (or perhaps misread, as scholars have debated) an announcement on television in somewhat unclear language (if you see a clip of the broadcast, you can even see him looking a bit surprised and what he thought he was reading) to the effect that the border would be opened for private trips abroad, which the East Germans watching on television interpreted to mean the complete opening of the border, prompting thousands to storm the checkpoints and begin tearing down the Wall. In the end, not Gorbachev nor Honecker nor Reagan, for that matter, played a key role in tearing down the Wall. Credit a bureaucrat's vague words and the initiative of the thousands of East Germans who made it so.

::::And I don't know why you keep making thinly veiled illusions suggesting that I'm some sort of foreigner. You keep using that canard to try to discredit me, but it only reflects poorly on you because 1) I'm an American, born and raised, and 2) your implication that anyone who bothers to learn about the other side of an issue (or in this case to pay attention to what was actually happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain rather than accepting a bunch of poorly supported opinions as the gospel truth) must not be American suggests that anyone who's American is also ignorant with respect to the rest of the world. -- "KW"
:::::KW, these are all good points you make above and well researched. However you may be argueing the substance on the page. Let's find somewhere to put all that research in. How about [[German Democratic Republic|East Germany]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Done. It's a fragmentary entry, by necessity, but at least there's the beginnings of an entry. -- "KW"

== Citations from Wikipedia.... ==

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there?

*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''

== Edits ==

I think the reorder is somewhat cumbersome, and not putting most of the information at the top, perhaps? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iran/Contra==
For this edit,
:''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."''
we need (a) a date; (b) source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
----
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted Reagan as uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair in 1988. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. Good research. Now as to specifics, your language "''depicted Reagan as uninformed''" is stated perhaps more precisely as "Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director William Casey, persuaded Reagan...".

*: '''Rob, "uninformed" in government parlance, is not what you think. It means the subordinates did not inform him. Those are raw quotes, which would need re-phrasing. I sent you an email, did you get it? There are lot of things most sane people wouldn't feel comfortable posting about themselves on public pages.''' --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Got it. Yes a private discussion can help facilitate where we wish to go with this and save time. I responded, did you get it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''No, Rob..I haven't reveived anything from you. Did you send it via email through this board? I'll email you, with my IM info.'''

:The two NSDD cited deserves treatment in context, however after Reagan's reelection (and the reestablishment of relations with Iraq) the overture to Iran to sell weapons from Israel was given more focus, as the Tower Commission Report clearly gives detail. Also, feelers were sent prior to the second term regarding contact between Teheran and the hostage takers in Lebenon.

:The language "''dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics''" referes to the use of the Iranian [[Mahatma Ghandi]] and proginator of [[Human Rights]] reforms in Iran, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], use of children to clear minefields.

:A proposal: lets complete a good review of the Iran/Contra affair here, in the Reagan artcle, which then perhaps could be spun off into its separate article with only a summary left behind. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Not from me, Rob! I put up material here, someone takes it, re-compiles it, slaps it back up as their edit, after the same thing was added by me a day or so ago! Is there some commandment about NOT communicating here? You invited participation, yet everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off, never communicating! --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make two observervations: (1) the stuff about it being outed on Nov. 3 1986 (we need to check if that is prior to election day 1986 when the Democrats regained the Senate and were in a position to hold public investigations, or after election day) is well researched, and we can put it in at the point it belongs. (2) The stuff about Iraq is going to need some clarification, because this narrative picks up "after Reagan was re-elected", i.e. after Nov. 84, and his swearing in Jan. 85; NSDD 139, 5 April 1984 is ''prior''. While all this material is extremely (a) valid and (b) relevent, we are writing an historical narrative of events, not doing a hit piece with piecemeal material out of context. So this is what I'd like to discuss, gaining some structure to events.

:::Let me add, as an after thought, all accounts I read all over the web dismiss this all as a "scandal" of a bunch of greedy arms dealers and other assorted low-lifes which either includes Reagan, or Reagan gave his assent to. That POV has been explicitely stated eleswhere. So what we are examining is the motives for Reagan's giving assent to this matter. And beginning with a conclusory premise, that (a) Reagan's just another greedy corrupt Republican (b) this is just more evidence of the currupt aims, motives, and duplicity of Republicans in power and why you can't trust them, will fail. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iraq==

--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Comment on this inclusion''':''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.");''

this may warrant inclusion at some point, and it no way contradicts US policy aims as stated by Henry Kissinger upon the outbreak of the Iran-iraq War in 1981, "All we can do is hope they both loose." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Being old enough to remember this time really good but too old to remember exactly where I heard this: The CIA, in shipments of Iran's weapons, would include "faulty" munitions such as hand grenades that would explode as soon as the handle was released, killing the thrower. Not all, but like 15-20% were "defective". I'll see if I can find a source.
::''primea facia'' this may be faulty; you will recall CIA was not involved in Iran/Contra; and using Israel & private arms dealers is what the matter was all about. Please, do not come here with warrantless, unqualified speculation. Get legitimate source documents first, then bring it to our attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
----
*Reagan said, '''''"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran..."'''''
This is the same problem that confronts President Bush today, i.e. allowing Iran to gain ascendancy over the majority Shia in Iraq, and the region. I'm sorry if this conflicts with journalists and scandalmongers aims to sell newspapers to paint Reagan in bed with the fascist Ba'athists, but this is not a propaganda vehicle, and we are here to write factual biography of Mr. Reagan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly, RobS. In the secular, political world, sometimes the person you end up in bed with, well...the reason you do is just because there isn't room anywhere else, or you are simply too tired to look elsewhere. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So the point here is, the crazies in Iran gaining hegemony in the Gulf needed to be detered (then, as now); then in Reagan's second term the fear that if a militarized Iraq survived the War intact, it might turn it's attention elsewhere, like Kuwait, which it did.

:::What do we know? Journalists blew the story wide open to sell headlines, and partisan Democrats looking to make a scandal, hastened (1) the Gulf War of 1991; (2) the fact that Iran ''still'' isn't an ally, and remains hostile with nuke capabilities. And if Iran hasn't got a nuke yet, they got the money to buy brainpower or an operational bomb from cash starved North Korea.

:::All this so partisans could create a scandal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Welcome to my world. I console myself knowing that sooner or later (usually later) the public gets damned mad, and there is literally political hell to pay. I have been waiting for that now about 7 years. Look at http://newt.org for American Solutions....something is being done, and the ground work being layed. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The public wouldn't get mad if they stopped eating up all the journalists and the paid purveyors if lies lies. Truth is, news items have a shelf life, and a "sell by" date. Journalists do not care if (1) four years later Saddam indeed invades Kuwait as Iran/Contra tried to head off, or (b) 20 years later Iran still isn't an ally and now is a hostile power seeking nuclear weapons. All these scandalmongers wish to do is build careers, create and sell interesting news items, and the world be damned if consequences down the road surface as a result of thier actions. They're always in the postion to blame others. And as P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute to buy thier lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==NSDD 139==
Here are portions of the relevent context of NSDD 139 5 April 1984 extracted for discussion.

*In light of recent developments in the Iran-Iraq War and the threat which an escalation of that conflict or a terrorist campaign could pose for the vital interests of the U.S. and its Allies, measures must be taken now to improve our immediate ability to deter an expansion of the conflict in the Persian Gulf and, if necessary, defend U.S. interests...

*In the recognition of the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism...

*...prepare a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse.

*The Secretary of State will ensure that the policy of the United States Government condemning the use of chemical warfare (CW) munitions in the Iran-Iraq war is unambiguous and consistent, with the 1925 Geneva protocol. Our condemnation of the use of CW munitions by the belligerents should place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives. (TS)

Here are extracts from '''Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)''', < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm >

===Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84===
*The Iranian high command passed from regular military leaders to clergy in mid-1982....

*In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan... near Basra...the clergy used "human-wave" attacks... Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks...

*...by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition.

*Beginning in 1984, ...according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations...

*In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations...

*...Iraq launched a new series of attacks on shipping on February 1, 1984.

===The War of Attrition, 1984-87===
*By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded....

*In early 1984...

*...the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."

*Despite Iraqi denials since the war started, in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men...

*Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks.

*Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men....in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons....between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons.

If anything is missing from the source documents to add to, or clarify context, please bring it forward. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''Some very valuable additions, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reagan & Shamir==
*''Reagan, though he once told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had personally liberated concentration camps''
this is total bull, and you should know better. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Reagan's participation in the liberation of concentration camps is bull, yes.

However, he did claim later in life, telling both Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal that he had personally liberated camps, when in fact he had merely seen film footage.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13736

----

== So much for being different from Wikipedia? ==

I noticed that Conservapedia now has a page explaining how it's different from Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia]. Reason No. 2, to quote it verbatim, is:

''We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.''

Now, I think this is a commendable policy. One journalist's view should not necessarily be taken as fact. And this holds doubly true in the case of columnists, editorialists and other commentators whose work regularly appears on the Op-Ed pages of newspapers. By definition, these kinds of journalists are presenting opinions, and often selectively use or disregard facts.

So I find it particularly troubling to see how many times this entry violates this policy. The opinions of Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, et al, are presented here in the guise of factual statements, used to justify specific opinions on Reagan's legacy, involvement with the Hollywood Blacklist, the end of the Cold War, etc. It just doesn't lend much credibility to the entry or to Conservapedia, particularly in light of the claim that Conservapedia "does not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts."

And, I'd add that presenting the views of Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher or other officials and politicians in a similar manner is just as problematic. While these sorts of individuals may have a unique perspective on events, having been personally and directly involved in ways most journalists and other observers have not, their views are still opinions, and should be presented -- as in the case of the op-ed columnists mentioned above -- as the opinions of interested parties, rather than given as fact.

Certainly, the same can be said of the academics and scholars cited in the entry. However, those viewpoints are clearly presented as individual interpretations (and are not upheld as the simple truth). Moreover, in general I'd feel more comfortable citing an academic book than a newspaper columnist or insider because there's usually a rigorous standard of methodology and research being used that just isn't there for journalists and politicians. If you cite an academic book, you can usually point to the fifty pages of sources and references at the back to show what it's based on. You're lucky if columnists even name their sources (much less the specific place where they found their information), while politicians are wont to simply refer to each other for credibility, which means the foundation for their opinions is often lacking in substance.

Now, I'm sure that pointing out this blatant contradiction of policy won't lead to its rectification for this entry, or for Conservapedia in general. But, I feel compelled for some odd reason to point out why the site will likely want for credibility, and to suggest some ways in which the standards and quality of submissions can become a bit more robust. The site is still young, and it's possible that with a concerted effort Conservapedia can achieve its purported goals. I just won't be holding my breath. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 12:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, whilst everyone is entitled to keep whatever opinions one wants to, it should be pointed out that most of that Journalists "report", these days, are just opinions as well, at best, and outright propaganda at the worst. In the end, what one's peers say about them, and the job you've done, is what counts in history. An automobile mechanic, being praised by other mechanics, is much more valuable to the rest of us, than praise from me. If you are laboring under the delusion that journalists, or academics are somehow "fairer" than other humans, you would be wrong.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

** That's certainly debatable. The reason historians and scholars tend to view memoirs and other ex post facto recollections with considerable skepticism is that people often rewrite or whitewash their past deeds to portray themselves in the most flattering light possible. Or, often they do so to flatter their friends and allies. There's nothing inherently evil in this; it's human nature. After all, we've all heard a few "fish stories" in our day.

My main point, however, was not that any particular kind of source was inherently better than others. Rather, it was to note that the opinions of columnists presented in the Reagan entry violate the Conservapedia policy cited above. I'd remove the quotes, but I'd get shouted down for "liberal bias" when all I want to see happen is Conservapedia actually abiding by its stated policies. The preceding unsigned comment was made by [[SmithHall]]

*There is only one quote from a columnist, which is, in the US, a different category than Journalist. Peggy Noonan was an Assistant to the President, a member of his administration. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edit ==

Could someone add this article to [[:Category:Actors]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

*That catagory is inappropriate. Should we add "Painters" or "House Painters" to Hitler? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Second thought, it is appropriate. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Iran Hostage Crisis]]==

Should there be some mention of the [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] in the foreign policy section? There isn't even a casual one-sentence dismissal of 444 days of captivity experienced by dozens of Americans. Completely left out. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 16:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*The Iran hostage crisis was on Jimmy Carter's watch, however you are right in saying it needs mention here as well, for the World knows that they turned them loose because they understood what Reagan would do to them if they didn't.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, they released them moments after news of his election. Heck, if I was a terrorist I'd be terrified of Reagan too. We could use another Reagan. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 19:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Saint Reagan==
I know he's a saint and all, but could we cut down the opening paragraph and make the dek more of a summary than a glowing review? Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*Flippin, you have crossed the line several times recently, with sarcastic, intemperate remarks, especially dragging Andy's family into your vendetta. I am sure you have many pairs of socks, so you shouldn't mind when I block you. Please be productive, and find another hobby aside from merely tweeking Conservatives, like producing articles, if you wish to remain here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Fixing Iran-Contra Section ==

At the *very least*, can we please get the name of the Bolan amendment right? That is a brutal blow to any pretense of competency on this issue. Also the argument that it is an impingement upon the power of the executive is highly tendentious; can it be fixed? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==1976 Election, running against Ford==

There's a section that says that Reagan withdrew his nomination because he could have beaten Ford and didn't want to be the spoiler. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Reagan almost pulled it off, but he came up short when the electoral count was being tallied. If he could have won the Republican nomination in 1976, he would have. No one runs for months of hard campaigning just to withdrew because they would win. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, I was there, that is what happened. There isn't an electoral tally at conventions. If he had stayed in, and once the first rounds of votes had been taken, the state delegates are then free from their commitment to vote per the primary. At that point hundreds would have voted with their hearts, which were always with Reagan. Recognizing the problem it would cause in the general election, he put a stop to it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well if you were there, then that trumps my knowledge. I was with my parents watching on TV and it didn't come across that way, but I was younger and TV isn't exactly going to report what happens in the trenches anyway, nor would I necessarily have the memory recall of someone dedicated enough to go to the live event. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*TV is good for some dramatic shows. I own a TIVO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Tip O'Neill==

Reagan did not only forge a friendship with O'Neill to "pass legislation" - O'Neill and Reagan were friends for many years following the end of Reagan and O'Neill's reign as the two most powerful men in the nation (1st and 2nd, respectivally). And neither Tip nor Reagan let their friendship get in the way of politics - or vice versa.

*That is very true. Too bad many today can't manage the same civility. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I’m reading Reagan’s autobiography right now and it seemed like he was trying to have a good relationship with Tip O’Neil, but O’Neil was resisting. He told of an instance where he invited O’Neil to the White House and they both had a really good time. Then the next day after O’Neil was attacked him in the press, he called up O’Neil and asked him why he was mad at him after they seemed to form such a good friendship, O’Neil said his and Reagan’s friendship was, “politics before 6:00pm, friendship after 6:00pm.” --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. President Reagan had "learning curve" in Washington, as all Presidents do. In the end, he considered O'Neil, and O'Neil considered Reagan, among their best friends in politics. They truly had a deep affection for each other, more than would be common for two Irishmen who had reached the pinnacles of their chosen profession. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== California ==

The Californian section on Reagan is sorely lacking. I would like to add more information concerning major landmarks in Californian history under Reagan's term as Governor which is not listed so far.

Also his history before California is very brief. - Kazuma

Feel free to make some suggestions here since the page is locked. I totally agree! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How is [[criticism of Ronald Reagan]] '''not''' [[placement bias]]? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== Parody? ==

"'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), '''''heroic leader''''' and father of modern political discourse"

I'd remove it, but I'm afraid it may have been left there on purpose. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Holocaust ==
I'm not so oblivious as to try to add it myself, but just out of curiosity...since [[Barack Obama|Obama's]] page now contains the account of his statement that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, shouldn't Reagan's claims (to Yitzak Shamir and Elie Wiesel) to have liberated concentration camps himself be added here? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Daughter that did playboy ==
Should this be mentioned?

== Election margin ==

Just putting a fact tag there for now since this is probably a pretty sensitive article here, but where are you getting that Reagan's 58.77% of the popular vote in 1984 is the largest in almost 100 years? Nixon got 60.67% in 1972, and if you don't want to count that because of Watergate, Johnson got 61.05% in 1964, Roosevelt 60.8% in 1936 and Wilson got 60.32% in 1920, none of which could be called "almost 100 years." [http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html] [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:38, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:Direct link doesn't work for source, hit the "Compare National Data by Year (Table)" link below the map.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::I checked the source you provided, and the original line you added the fact tag to is substantialy correct. At over 54 million voters, it is the largest turnout for over a century until the 2000 election and later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::If the stat is just referring to the number of people who voted for him, I'm not sure how meaningful it is... as the population increases, obviously the number of voters is going to increase. You're right that it was the largest number of votes for a candidate ever at the time; but that also happened in 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1936, 1932, 1928, etc, and Barack Obama is the most popular presidential candidate ever by that standard.
:::If saying that he received the most votes ever at the time is the intention of the statement and you do want it to stay, it should at least be reworded because the way it's written it looks like the stat is referring to the percentage of the vote that he received. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::The re-wording would be fine; I would suggest the actual number of voters in addition to that percentage. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:55, 15 January 2009 (EST)

*Everyone is sooooo impatient, but I fixed the stats, etc. Please don't expect immediate results, lol. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Liberal ==

Reagan was a leading Hollywood liberal in the 1940s, as he himself said many times. That is essential to understanding him. If people are puzzled by the category, then they should read the article and learn some history. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Year of the Bible ==

I set up a separate article for [[Year of the Bible]] which deserves its own article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:57, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

==Category==
I noticed liberals is a category for Reagan. The only reason I can think of why that exists is because he was a convert to Conservatism. I am inclined to delete that category.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
::the reason is that in the 1940s he was one of the country's foremost liberals--there was talk already of a political career by 1945 and he was one of the most famous labor union leaders and supporters of FDR and Truman. Reagan is a complicate person and his transformation in the 1950s is central to the story.

:::Reagan had an open mind, and that led him to conservatism, particularly after Nancy's father introduced him to the logical ideas underlying conservatism. But I don't know why we would list Reagan as a "liberal". Usually people are known by where they end up, not their missteps along the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Reagan's case is an interesting one for the historian--how to deal with people who switch positions. A lot of people moved from left to right, like Herbert Hoover, Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham and John Dos Passos (and a few moved in the other direction--such as Woodrow Wilson, Gary Wills and Barry Goldwater). (There also are people like Senator Lieberman who are even more complex). We can 1) use the status where they ended up; 2) use the status where they were most important historically; or 3) use both. My own preference is #3 because it gives more information. In other words, a student writing about liberalism in the 1940s should be able to include Reagan. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:43, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Jensen, sorry, your thinking is poppycock. This issue was previously decided, as was the official name of the article. Please communicate more, and you wouldn't exert unnecessary effort. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:03, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::TK seems to have recovered the old fighting spirit--but while recuperating I recommend he take time to read a book or two. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:::What about a "former liberals" category? That would appear to be more accurate. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:54, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::::yes that's the solution. :) -- I added it.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:19, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== title ==

Conservatives never call him "Ronald Wilson Reagan" and we don't want out CP users to start calling him that, so the title should be "Ronald Reagan" [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:28, 13 December 2009 (EST)

== Ronald Reagan Jr. an atheist ==

Ronald Reagan Jr. is a self-proclaimed "unabashed atheist," and he even headlined the Freedom from Religion Foundation's 2009 conference. You do note some things about his other children, and the family section is a little lacking. It seems worth a note, but the final call is up to you, of course. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:39, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Cain

2010-03-04T23:19:15Z

DanieleGiusto: /* "Who was Cain's wife?" */ deleted incomprehensible sentence

== Life as recorded in the Bible ==

'''Cain''' (Hebrew, "''acquisition''") was the firstborn son of [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] as recorded in the [[Bible]]. Born after [[Fall of man|the fall]], he became a farmer. He was the first murderer, killing his brother [[Abel]] because God accepted Abel's offering, but not Cain's. God punished him by cursing him to be a wanderer who would always have to toil hard for little reward. When Cain protested that "whoever finds me will kill me," God put a mark on him so that "if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." <ref>Genesis 4:10-17</ref>

In time, Cain built a city that he named after his son Enoch. According to the apocryphal [[Book of Jubilees]], Cain married his sister <ref>Such marriages were not forbidden until the time of [[Moses]].</ref> Awan and was later killed when his house collapsed on him.<ref>Book of Jubilees 4:9,31</ref>

== "Who was Cain's wife?" ==

When Cain was sent away by God into exile, mankind was in its second generation - anyone Cain (or any of his siblings) could marry would be his close relative. However, the [[Law of Moses]] forbids the marriage of close relatives. Many people find this a Biblical contradiction.

However, this law was not given until later, at the time of Moses (Leviticus 18). Indeed, [[Abraham]] married his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12). When God created man, He called him "very good". However, after the [[Fall of Man]], harmful genetic mutations would gradually build up and cause virtually all offspring of close relatives to be deformed because both parents would have the same mutated [[allele]]s. For example, many Egyptian [[pharaoh]]s married their sisters and had perfectly normal offspring; the children of such incestuous unions today are almost always deformed.<ref>Rushdoony, ''The Institutes of Biblical Law''</ref>

Note also that a wife is related to her husband even before they marry, as all humans come from the offspring of Adam and Eve.

Therefore, the popular question of "who was Cain's wife?" is easily answered.

== References ==

{{reflist}}
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]

Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)

2010-03-04T22:59:17Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Chapter 1 */ Grammar error

{{ConservativeBible}}
==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
|In many ways and at many times in the past, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets,
|This chapter striking in its main thrust and quotes - Jesus is the SON, superior to all created beings, and in particuilar the angels of God, and He is the object of O.T. references clearly of God. This is a pre trinitarion attribution of Divinity to the Savior. "Helping along" with this, along with the selection of O.T. verses, are the facts that in Hebrew, lack of case endings and therefore the primacy of syntax (position of words in sentence) can be made to emphasize His divinity - Elohim Elohekha( "God [can be 'speaking about' but here most probably 'speaking to'], Your God")and the fact that the base form in the Aramaic and Vocative are exactly the same - (Allha= both '[the]God' and 'O God'). But,of course, there is also the direct, and non linguistic, affirmation of the Son's deity - But to the Son, He says, "Your Throne, O God...". I have tried to keep the authors style which in places thought seems to tumble after thought bringing an accentuation of the SON. this fits in 'idiomization' of the text but of course, is not the usual style for translating this otherwise majestic structure of divine thought. The last thing to say, I have capitalized phrases or words (Last Days, Word of...) which are already in the author's day and can be seen from his work, pregnant with meaning and evoking of many associations, all of which are necessary for our understanding of this epistle.

|-
|2
| Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
|But in these the Last Days He has spoken to us through His Son, whom He determined to be the inheritor of everthing, the Son, by whom He made the worlds,
|
|-
|3
| Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
|the Son, who is the very brightness of His Glory, and the very image of His Person, and the bearer of all things, carrying them by the Word of his power. When He, the Son, had Himself accomplished a cleansing of our sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Greatness on High.
|
|-
|4
| Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
|This One, then, is to be considered inestimably better than angels having been bequeathed a title more excellent than they.
|
|-
|5
| For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
|Did He say, at any time, to an angel, "You are My Son, today I have become your father", or "I will be his Father and he shall be My son"
|
|-
|6
| And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
|or, as happened when He brought the Firstborn into the world, "Let all the angels of God worship Him."?
|
|-
|7
| And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
|But, rather, of angels, He says, "He makes His angles spirits, and His servants a flaming fire."
|
|-
|8
| But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
|But to the Son, He says, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness, the sceptre of Your Kingdom.
|
|-
|9
| Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
|You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. For this reason, God, Your God, has anointed You from among all your companions with the oil of joy."
|
|-
|10
| And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands
|And. "You, Lord, in the beginning of all, set down earths' foundations. Heaven is the work of Your hands.
|
|-
|11
|They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
|They shall perish; but You remain. As a garment they all wear out.
|
|-
|12
|And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
|And as a cloak, You will fold them up. They will be changed but You remain the same, Your years shall have no end."
|

|
|-
|13
|But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
|But to any angel, did He say at any time, "Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for You?"
|
|-
|14
|Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
|Aren't they all spirits of service, sent out to serve those who will be heirs of salvation?
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
|Therefore we need to take very seriously what we have heard, if we are not to fall away.
|The rhetorical tone of persuation continues with appeal becoming more prominent as the author makes transition from the Son as Deity to the Son as Jesus on earth become one of us for His mission of redeeming us. Without using "incarnation", it is all there. The appeal is to the heart and the conscience making the language in this section, "without flourish" or distance. There is no excaping his meaning for us (the Jewish believers starting to slip back to the Law, and then to all believers) to change our ways and return to Him and the ways of grace. Language becomes pithy, direct,touching the heart as author turns us to Jesus whom we see now crowned, through the eyes of faith, while with our physical eyes, see all around the world not yet subjected to Him. Along with Greek and the Syriac, in the 1st verse the KJV "slip" or better "fall (Peshitta understanding of Gr. word) away" or "drift away" does not refer to the things "which we have heard" but to us, the readers of the letter. We are in danger of "slipping"
|-
|2
| For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
|If the word "spoken by angels" stood firm, and every violation and disobedience met with its due "payback",
|"Spoken by angels" is in quotes. It is hard to know if the author really holds to the first century idea that the Torah was given through the mediation of angels or that he using this thought to press His point that if the lesser - Law and angels had full force, how much more the greater - the word from Jesus, having come directly to us from Him, and indirectly through His Apostles.
|-
|3
| How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
|How can we escape, if we neglect such a great salvation, first spoken about by the Lord, and then passed on to us with surety by those who heard the Lord.
|
|-
|4
| God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
|These people had God's own witness to what they were saying by His granting signs, and wonders and various demonstrations of His power, gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as He deemed proper.
|
|-
|5
| For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
|It was not to angels that He subjected the coming worlds of which we are speaking
|again accentuated by word order the opposition between men and angels. This time with the superiority clearly going to man. This is to tie in the superiority of the Son of God as Deity over the angels with now the superiority of Him incarnate, Jesus Christ come in the flesh, over the angels.
|-
|6
| But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
|Someone in some place gives testimony, saying, What is man that You think of him or the son of man that You watch over him?
|"Someone in some place"- the author, in the rush of thought, does not readily have the reference in the Scriptures. An example of the force of focus on the task at hand.
The natural biblical parallelism of man - son of man, will lend itself slight further down to bring in the Son of Man, but not yet.
|-
|7
| Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands
|You have made him somewhat less than the angels, you have crowned him with Glory and Honour, and have placed him over the works of Your hands
| "Hebrews" following the Greek Septuagint has "less than the angels" rather than the original Hebrew text "less than God (Elohim)". The Son will be the final and fully crowned crowned "son of man, but that because of His role in redemption rather than order of creation
|-
|8
| Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
|You have put everything under His feet in subjection to Him. All things are placed in subjection to Him. Nothing has not been put under Him.
But we do not see now that all things are put under him.
|
|-
|9
| But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
|But we see Jesus, who had become a little "lower than the angels" for the suffering of death, we see Him crowned with Glory and Honour, so, by God's grace, He could taste the death of every man.
|
|-
|10
| For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
|For it was just like the Father, seeing that everything was created by Him, and it was for Him that they were made, when he determined to bring many sons into Glory, to make the Fount of their salvation, perfect through the suffering which He endured
|αρχηγον means Leader, author, prince, captain and is translated by the Syriac as Head, which also includes the idea of Source. From the context, it seems however it is translated, there is no distance, as there might be of a Leader, or if a leader, all are right there with him just behind. The thought will follow that the sancnified and sanctifier are one. I have chosen Fount to show the flow of unity - from Him to the sons.

In 5:9, Again, the theme is taken up that Jesus was made perfect, not implying sin, but completion through the stages in perfect obedience within the experience of sufferings. This will be important. His righteousness was no fiction thus what He won could rightly be there and rightly granted by Him to us. He took our actual and "hard won" sins, we received His hard won righteousness.
|-
|11
| For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
|For both He who makes holy and those who are made holy are one. That is why He is not embarrassed to call them His brothers.
|-
|12
| Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
|Saying, I will proclaim Your name to my brothers, in the midst of the church I will sing Your praises.
|The KJV "Church" is good for εκκλησιας, not the "assembly" of NKJV. The term is already coined for the assembly of believers in Christ.

|-
|13
| And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
|And again, I will totally put my confidence in Him, and again, Yes, I and the children God has give me.
|The one who is speaking in the above verses is the Son. In this verse, it is not clear what the first quote has to do with the second. But perhaps it is this, in the first, He expresses His own trust in God (the Father). Once having expressed that, the second quote tells us He is not alone. With Him in this are the children the Father has given Him. Again, they are one, and then follows the meaning of that onesness.
|-
|14
| Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
|
because the children were human beings, He also became a human being, so that He might die, and through that, destroy the one holding the powere of death, namely, the Devil,
|
|-
|15
| And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
|freeing them who because of their fear of death, were held in life-long bondage.
|
|-
|16
| For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
|And so He took on not the nature of angels, but rather that of the seed of Abraham.
|going with the KJV in this passage where the Greek is unclear. Further in divergence is the Syria, perhaps having the same problem - "...death, not having ruled over angels but rather the seed of Abraham"
|-
|17
| Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
|Becasue of all this, it was necessary for Him to be exactly like His brothers, so that He might prove to be a merciful and faithful High Priest toward God for them, and to make a reconciliation for the people's sins.
|
|-
|18
| For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
|Because He Himself has endured temptation, He is able to help those who are being tempted.
|
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
|So,my holy brothers, sharing in the heavenly call, focus in on the Apostle and High Priest of our faith, Christ Jesus.
|an example of "suggestive" thought - one thought suggesting another, not requiring it.

"of our faith". The word translated as faith" really means confession or profession of faith, but from the thust of the whole epistle, it is clear that the concern is for going on without swerving or dopping out of the community of faith, which one has entered on his profession of faith. The church professes Christ, and by our joining this faith, so do we.
|-
|2
| Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
|Yes, He was faithful to the One who appointed Him, in similar fashion as Moses was faithful to all his house
|
|-
|3
| For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
|But this One was far more worthy of regard than Moses, as it is really the builder of the house, rather than the house itself, that we have the more regard for.
|Here begins the back and forth showing the superiority of Christ over Moses. In some translations this "on one hand.. but on the other hand" does not receive the emphasis that actual fluidity of the connectives permit and require. This translation allows for that assisted by emphasis permitted by changes in phrase and word order. Here the rhetorical should be given full play and not the structural or "edificial"
|-
|4
| For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
|every house is built by some particular individual. But everything that is built has God as its builder
|
|-
|5
| And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
|And it was as a servant that Moses was faithful in all his house, the full implications of this could only be understood later on,
|
|-
|6
| But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
|But Christ was faithful as a Son over the house, and that house his own; and we are that house, if we only hold on tight to the confidence and to the joy of this hope, until the very end.
|I have retained KJV "house" faithful to the Greek, rather than making explicit Moses baing faithful as a servant in the house was meant to indicate the things of God and in particlular related to the Torah. I have kept the "house" because the house is actually the term in the Bible and in the Judaism of the day of Hebrews that meant the "temple" - The House of the Lord. So we being the house of the Lord is the same as we being the Temple of the Lord in the letter of Peter. This equivalence shows that already in the book of Hebrews, and to be developed in the letter, there is a thoroughgoing fulfillment - not only the ritualistic elements of the earthly temple of the O.T. and the priesthood, fulfilled in Heaven and in Christ, but also a fulfillment of the people of the O.T. in the people of the New Covenant, the Church. This is not the same as in what is called "replacement theology" as there are fulfillments for the People of Israel as well. All this could not be reflected in the text, of course, but can be developed in footnotes. In other words, a good translation will need to be "annotated".
|-
|7
| Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
|And so (The Holy Spirit is speaking: This Day, if you hear His voice,
|
|-
|8
| Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness
|do not harden your hearts as in the Trial, the day of temptation of the Wilderness
|again literally "in the wilderness", but translated "of the Wilderness". "The Day of the Wilderness" already known and used as a phrase, thus giving force for a lesson.
|
|-
|9
| When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
|The time your fathers tempted me, put me to the trial, having seen my doings for forty years!
| "tempted me, proved me,"..."tempted me, put me to the trial, having seen my doings..." - The "and"s of prose are left out replicating the poetic jabs, the cadences of the original Hebrew in the Psalms. The Vavs in Hebrew do not always mean the prosaic "and" and should not always be translated as "and".

|-
|10
| Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
|So, My heart was cut, hurt because of that generation, and I said, "They are always wandering astray in their hearts. The have not know My ways."
|
|-
|11
| So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
|And I swore in my anger, "They shall not enter into My Rest!)
|
|-
|12
| Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
|And so, my brothers, Be alert that there be no evil heart of unbelief and departing fro the living God
|
|-
|13
| But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
|Cause others evry day to be serious about it while we are in "This Day" now, so that you do not become hardened by deceptive way that sin has,
|
|-
|14
| For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
|We will be sharers in Christ, if our early confidence sees us through to the end,
|
|-
|15
| While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
|As to it being said. " This Day, if you hear His voice,
|
|-
|8
| Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness
|do not harden your hearts as in the Trial, the day of temptation of the Wilderness",
|-
|16
| For some, when they had heard, did provoke| howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
|This was applicable to the some who had come out of Egypt, the ones who provoked,
|
|-
|17
| But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
|
whoe ere the one with whom He was grieved for forty years? was it not with those whose dead bodies lie in the Wilderness?
|
|-
|18
| And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
|Who were they that He swore would not enter into His Rest, where they not those who believed not?
|
|-
|19
| So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
|So we see, it was because of unbelief that they could not enter.
|Here is a more than minor statement which will appear over and over again in other forms - do not think that you can retain belief in Christ and reject the community of faith - the Church. But along the way, I (the author of Hebrews) will show you the fulfillment in Christ of every thing of the Judaism you know and the Old Testament foundation of all, for the rightness of your decision of faith to shine through. But know that it is the community of Faith. And without faith, you cannot enter in.

|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
|Let us be fearful, therefore, that any of us, falling short, do not enter His Rest
|
|-
|2
| For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
|We, as well as the people of former time, had God's word proclaimed to us, but they not having faith mixed in with the Word that they heard.
|
|-
|3
| For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
|For it is we believers who do enter the Rest, He having said, "I have sworn in my anger that they should not enter my Rest", the Rest commencing with the conclusion of the work undertaken for the founding of the world.
|
|-
|4
| For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
|Because in a certain place He spoke in words to this effect, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works."
|
|-
|5
| And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
|And then in another place, "They shall not enter into my Rest!"
|
|-
|6
| Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief
|And so we see that some are to enter in and we also see that the ones first preached to did not enter in - because of their unbelief
|
|-
|7
| Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
|And then again we see that there is a "certain day", according to David from a time much later on. It is said, "This Day, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts".
|
|-
|8
| For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
| Well, if Joshua had given them the Rest, then there would not have been need to afterward speak of'' another'' Day.
|"Jesus" is the Greek (iesous) for Joshua. There are the same name. the Peshitta Aramaic spells this out by supplying here Joshua's full name Joshua Ben Nun (Joshua son of Nun). The Greek leaves it ambiguous, knowing that who was intended was Joshua, the servant and successor of Moses, but also seeing the activity of the Son of God Jesus in salvations now and then.
|-
|9
| There remaineth therefore a Rest to the people of God.
|And so "the Rest" remains for the people of God.
|Here and in the following verses, is a clear demonstration of the concept that works do not bring us to the promised rest of God, and that the believers by not trying it by works do enter into that rest that God has provided, and so they do it God's way who Himself rested from His own works - the works of creation. We labor to enter into His Rest. That is not a contradiction. We decide, determine, and stick to the resolution, that we will be saved by Him in whom we have believed and not sink back into the old way of striving to please Him by who we are and and what we can do.
|-
|10
| For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
|For the one who has entered into his Rest, He has ceased from his own "works", just as God did from his.
|
|-
|11
| Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
|Let us labor, therefore to enter our Rest, God forbid there befall us what unbelief brings,
|
|-
|12
| For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
|Yes, God's word is alive and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, cutting down between the soul and the spirit, stiking even inner bone, and tendon, and knowing what is going on in ones heart and mind.
| Here the author transits from the "it" of the Word to "He" who is the Word and with whom we have to do.
|-
|13
| Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
|No created thing is left unexposed to His sight; all are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
|
|-
|14
| Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
|Well, seeing that we do have a great High Priest, that has gone through into Heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold strong in our confession.
|Well, we do not loose heart as the One who sees all and from Whom none can escape, He is the One who pities us having great compassion.
|-
|15
| For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
|We do not have a High Priest who is untouched and immune to what we go through, our debilities: in every way we are, He was tempted, but did not sin.
|
|-
|16
| Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
|So let us come with confidence to the Throne of Grace, so that we can obtain mercy and God's compassion, to help us for the time of our need.
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins
|For every high priest taken from men is given for men for things that pertain to God, for the purpose of offerings and sacrifices
|
|-
|2
| Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
|and these can have sympathy on those that are ignorant and who stray, becaue he likewise has these debilities.
|
|-
|3
| And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
|And that is why he needs to offer up for his own sins, just as for the others.
|
|-
|4
| And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
|No person can take the weight of this honor on his own, but he must be called by God, just as was Aaron.
|
|-
|5
| So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
|the same with Christ; He did not take this honor on Himself to make of Hinmself a high priest. It was He that said to Him, " You are my Son, This Day I have fathered You.
|
|-
|6
| As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
|He also said somehwhere else, " You are a Priest forever, in the likeness of Melchizedek.
|The Greek can bear the meaning of "Order", possibly a "mishmeret" of priests (a formal grouping of priests for particular service at a particular cycle of time as was in Zakharia, the father of John the Baptizer) but may also bear, as the Peshitta has it, a "likeness" or type that is replicated (ܒ݁ܰܕ݂ܡܽܘܬ݂ܶܗ ܕ݁ܡܰܠܟ݁ܺܝܙܕ݂ܶܩ biddmuteh dMelcisedek). I have chosen the latter as it continues the theme of image bearing, and leaves open the possibility of later interpretation of Epistle to the Hebrews that Melchizedek actually was a pre-incarnational theophany of the Son of God
|-
|7
| Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
|This One when He was on earth in the flesh, offered up prayers and heartfelt stirrings with loud cries and tears to Him having the power to save Him from death, and He was heard, for he feared God.
|
|-
|8
| Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
|Even though He was a Son, He still had to learn obedience by endurance through the things He suffered
|
|-
|9
| And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
|And so having become perfect, He bacame the Source of eternal salvation for all who will obey Him.
|
|-
|10
| Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
|Yes, He was called by God to be in such a way in the likeness of Melchizedek
|
|-
|11
| Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
|I have many things to say about this matter, but it is diffuclt, you are so hard to get through to.
|
|-
|12
| For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
|You should be teachers by this time, but you yourselves need to be taught the very basics of the message of God, You need to drink milk, not eat solid meat.
|
|-
|13
| For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
|Everyone needing milk is still a baby, "milk" for the bumblers, taking first steps in the word of righteousness.
|
|-
|14
| But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
|Solid food is for the grown-ups, those that have mastered solid steps in the distinguishing between good and evil.
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
|
|
|-
|2
| Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
|
|
|-
|3
| And this will we do, if God permit.
|
|
|-
|4
| For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
|
|
|-
|5
| And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
|
|
|-
|6
| If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
|
|
|-
|7
| For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God
|
|
|-
|8
| But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
|
|
|-
|9
| But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
|
|
|-
|10
| For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
|
|
|-
|11
| And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end
|
|
|-
|12
| That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
|
|
|-
|13
| For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
|
|
|-
|14
| Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
|
|
|-
|15
| And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
|
|
|-
|16
| For men verily swear by the greater| and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
|
|
|-
|17
| Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath
|
|
|-
|18
| That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us
|
|
|-
|19
| Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
|
|
|-
|20
| Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
|
|
|-
|2
| To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
|
|
|-
|3
| Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
|
|
|-
|4
| Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
|
|
|-
|5
| And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham
|
|
|-
|6
| But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
|
|
|-
|7
| And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
|
|
|-
|8
| And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
|
|
|-
|9
| And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
|
|
|-
|10
| For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
|
|
|-
|11
| If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
|
|
|-
|12
| For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
|
|
|-
|13
| For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
|
|
|-
|14
| For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
|
|
|-
|15
| And it is yet far more evident for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
|
|
|-
|16
| Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
|
|
|-
|17
| For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
|
|
|-
|18
| For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
|
|
|-
|19
| For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
|
|
|-
|20
| And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest
|
|
|-
|21
| (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec)
|
|
|-
|22
| By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
|
|
|-
|23
| And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death
|
|
|-
|24
| But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
|
|
|-
|25
| Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
|
|
|-
|26
| For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
|
|
|-
|27
| Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's| for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
|
|
|-
|28
| For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
|
|
|-
|2
| A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
|
|
|-
|3
| For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
|
|
|-
|4
| For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law
|
|
|-
|5
| Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
|
|
|-
|6
| But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
|
|
|-
|7
| For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
|
|
|-
|8
| For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah
|
|
|-
|9
| Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
|
|
|-
|10
| For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people
|
|
|-
|11
| And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
|
|
|-
|12
| For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
|
|
|-
|13
| In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 9==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
|
|
|-
|2
| For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
|
|
|-
|3
| And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
|
|
|-
|4
| Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
|
|
|-
|5
| And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
|
|
|-
|6
| Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
|
|
|-
|7
| But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people
|
|
|-
|8
| The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing
|
|
|-
|9
| Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
|
|
|-
|10
| Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
|
|
|-
|11
| But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
|
|
|-
|12
| Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
|
|
|-
|13
| For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh
|
|
|-
|14
| How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
|
|
|-
|15
| And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
|
|
|-
|16
| For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
|
|
|-
|17
| For a testament is of force after men are dead| otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
|
|
|-
|18
| Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
|
|
|-
|19
| For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
|
|
|-
|20
| Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
|
|
|-
|21
| Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
|
|
|-
|22
| And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
|
|
|-
|23
| It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
|
|
|-
|24
| For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
|
|
|-
|25
| Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
|
|
|-
|26
| For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
|
|
|-
|27
| And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment
|
|
|-
|28
| So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 10==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
|
|
|-
|2
| For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
|
|
|-
|3
| But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
|
|
|-
|4
| For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
|
|
|-
|5
| Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me
|
|
|-
|6
| In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
|
|
|-
|7
| Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
|
|
|-
|8
| Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
|
|
|-
|9
| Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
|
|
|-
|10
| By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
|
|
|-
|11
| And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins
|
|
|-
|12
| But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
|
|
|-
|13
| From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
|
|
|-
|14
| For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
|
|
|-
|15
| Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us| for after that he had said before,
|
|
|-
|16
| This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
|
|
|-
|17
| And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
|
|
|-
|18
| Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
|
|
|-
|19
| Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
|
|
|-
|20
| By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
|
|
|-
|21
| And having an high priest over the house of God;
|
|
|-
|22
| Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
|
|
|-
|23
| Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
|
|
|-
|24
| And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works
|
|
|-
|25
| Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
|
|
|-
|26
| For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
|
|
|-
|27
| But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
|
|
|-
|28
| He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses
|
|
|-
|29
| Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
|
|
|-
|30
| For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
|
|
|-
|31
| It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
|
|
|-
|32
| But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
|
|
|-
|33
| Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
|
|
|-
|34
| For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
|
|
|-
|35
| Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
|
|
|-
|36
| For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
|
|
|-
|37
| For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
|
|
|-
|38
| Now the just shall live by faith| but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
|
|
|-
|39
| But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 12==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
|
|
|-
|2
| For by it the elders obtained a good report.
|
|
|-
|3
| Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
|
|
|-
|4
| By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
|
|
|-
|5
| By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
|
|
|-
|6
| But without faith it is impossible to please him for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
|
|
|-
|7
| By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
|
|
|-
|8
| By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
|
|
|-
|9
| By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise
|
|
|-
|10
| For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
|
|
|-
|11
| Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
|
|
|-
|12
| Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
|
|
|-
|13
| These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
|
|
|-
|14
| For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
|
|
|-
|15
| And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
|
|
|-
|16
| But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a city.
|
|
|-
|17
| By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
|
|
|-
|18
| Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called
|
|
|-
|19
| Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
|
|
|-
|20
| By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
|
|
|-
|21
| By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
|
|
|-
|22
| By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
|
|
|-
|23
| By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
|
|
|-
|24
| By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
|
|
|-
|25
| Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
|
|
|-
|26
| Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt| for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
|
|
|-
|27
| By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king| for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
|
|
|-
|28
| Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
|
|
|-
|29
| By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land| which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
|
|
|-
|30
| By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
|
|
|-
|31
| By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
|
|
|-
|32
| And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets
|
|
|-
|33
| Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
|
|
|-
|34
| Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
|
|
|-
|35
| Women received their dead raised to life again and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection
|
|
|-
|36
| And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment
|
|
|-
|37
| They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
|
|
|-
|38
| (Of whom the world was not worthy) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
|
|
|-
|39
| And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise
|
|
|-
|40
| God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 13==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
|
|
|-
|2
| Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
|
|
|-
|3
| For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
|
|
|-
|4
| Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
|
|
|-
|5
| And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him|
|
|
|-
|6
| For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
|
|
|-
|7
| If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
|
|
|-
|8
| But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
|
|
|-
|9
| Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
|
|
|-
|10
| For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
|
|
|-
|11
| Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
|
|
|-
|12
| Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
|
|
|-
|13
| And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
|
|
|-
|14
| Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord
|
|
|-
|15
| Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
|
|
|-
|16
| Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
|
|
|-
|17
| For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
|
|
|-
|18
| For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
|
|
|-
|19
| And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more
|
|
|-
|20
| (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart
|
|
|-
|21
| And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake)
|
|
|-
|22
| But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
|
|
|-
|23
| To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
|
|
|-
|24
| And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
|
|
|-
|25
| See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven
|
|
|-
|26
| Whose voice then shook the earth| but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
|
|
|-
|27
| And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
|
|
|-
|28
| Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear
|
|
|-
|29
| For our God is a consuming fire.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 14==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
| Let brotherly love continue.
|
|
|-
|2
| Be not forgetful to entertain strangers for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
|
|
|-
|3
| Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
|
|
|-
|4
| Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
|
|
|-
|5
| Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
|
|
|-
|6
| So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
|
|
|-
|7
| Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
|
|
|-
|8
| Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
|
|
|-
|9
| Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
|
|
|-
|10
| We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
|
|
|-
|11
| For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
|
|
|-
|12
| Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
|
|
|-
|13
| Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
|
|
|-
|14
| For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
|
|
|-
|15
| By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
|
|
|-
|16
| But to do good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
|
|
|-
|17
| Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you.
|
|
|-
|18
| Pray for us for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.
|
|
|-
|19
| But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.
|
|
|-
|20
| Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
|
|
|-
|21
| Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
|
|
|-
|22
| And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation for I have written a letter unto you in few words.
|
|
|-
|23
| Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
|
|
|-
|24
| Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
|
|
|-
|25
| Grace be with you all. Amen.
|
|
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T23:20:27Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Engineer

2010-01-07T21:49:31Z

DanieleGiusto: Removed sentence fragment

[[Image:Col5.jpg|right]]
An '''engineer''' uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.<ref>"engineer." Dictionary.com - WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 16 Jul. 2007. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engineer]</ref> According to the Merriam Webster's collegiate dictionary, engineering is defined as "the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people." <ref>[http://www.nspe.org/media/mr1-faqs.asp What is engineering?] Frequently Asked Questions About Engineering.</ref>

There are many branches of engineering, including electrical, mechanical, civil, chemical, aerospace, biomedical, agricultural, environmental, industrial, and materials engineering.<ref>[http://www.nspe.org/media/mr1-faqs.asp What is engineering?] Frequently Asked Questions About Engineering.</ref> Many American colleges offer engineering degrees.

Usually a person trained and skilled in the design, construction, and use of engines or machines, or in any of various branches of engineering.

In the U. S. and Canada, the title of "Professional Engineer" and often also titles indicating a specific branch of engineering, such as "Civil Engineer" or "Mechanical Engineer" are restricted. <ref>[http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/Current/iac/193c/193c4/193c4.pdf ENGINEERING LICENSURE]</ref> <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/professional-engineer Professional Engineer] Answers Corporation </ref> <ref>[http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90p28_e.htm Licensing requirement] Professional Engineers Act - Ontario Statutes and Regulations </ref> In mainland [[Europe]] engineering is seen as comparable to other professions such as medicine and architecture.

A major difference between an engineer and other types of designers is that an engineer is held responsibile for the success of his designs. An engineer who plans a bridge can lose his engineering license if the bridge collapses.

'''Engineer''' also refers to someone who operates train locomotives.

== External links ==

*[http://www.wierassociates.com/History%20Articles/HA06.htm From Ingenium to Engineer]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Professions]]

Matrix

2010-01-07T21:46:33Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Advanced concepts */

''For the 1999 film, see [[The Matrix]].''

A '''matrix''' (pl.: "matrices," [[Latin]] origin) is a complex ordering, in deliberate fashion, of [[numeral|numerals]]. In [[mathematics]], a "matrix" is a regular grid of numbers, which may be manipulated and solved through intermediate-level [[algebra]]. Matrix algebra is usually taught in [[sophomore]] [[high school]] level mathematics.

More formally, a matrix is an example of a rank-2 [[tensor]].

Alternately, a '''matrix''' may also be a complex ordering of a group of equivalent objects, especially where the order is imposed to gain incidental benefit from the [[synergy]] of the networked objects.

==Mathematics==
In mathematics, matrices can be manipulated in a variety of ways, including [[addition]] and [[multiplication]].

===Addition of matrices===
For example, to add two matrices, one would add their respective elements, thus:

<math>\begin{bmatrix}
x & y & z \\
1 & 3 & 5 \\
0 & 2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 3 & 1 \\
4 & 3 & {x+2} \\
0 & 4 & v
\end{bmatrix} </math>

would equal

<math>\begin{bmatrix}
{x+0} & {y+3} & {z+1} \\
{1+4} & {3+3} & {5+(x+2)} \\
{0+0} & {2+4} & {0+v}
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
x & {y+3} & {z+1} \\
5 & 6 & {x+7} \\
0 & 6 & v
\end{bmatrix} </math>

===Multiplication of matrices===
To multiply two matrices, one uses the rule "go along the rows and down the columns". This is best illustrated by a specific example: a matrix times a vector:

<math>\begin{bmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
e \\ f
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
ae+bf \\
ce+df \end{bmatrix}
</math>

It is important to note that matrix multiplication is not commutative: in general, <math>AB \neq BA</math> for two matrices <math>A</math> and <math>B</math>. This has important consequences in [[quantum mechanics]].

To see why matrix multiplication works the way it does, we will use [[suffix notation]]. Consider first forming the product of two matrices, <math>AB</math>, which is itself a matrix. Then form the product <math>ABx</math>. Matrix multiplication is associative, so we can consider this as either <math>(AB)x</math> or <math>A(Bx)</math>. In suffix notation,

<math>
\sum_j(AB)_{ij}x_j = \sum_k A_{ik}(Bx)_k=\sum_{j,k}A_{ik}B_{kj}x_j
</math>
The vector <math>x</math> is arbitrary, so we can therefore deduce the rule for finding the product of two matrices:

<math>
(AB)_{ij}=\sum_k A_{ik}B_{kj}
</math>

===Matrix concepts===

====Basic concepts====

*[[Adjoint]]
*[[Determinant]]
*[[Diagonal matrix]]
*[[Identity matrix]]
*[[Inverse matrix]]
*[[Null, column and row space]]
*[[Scalar]]
*[[Trace]]
*[[Transpose matrix]]
*[[Vector]]
*[[Zero matrix]]

====Advanced concepts====

*[[Basis]]
*[[Diagonalizable]]
*[[Eigenspace]]
*[[Eigenvalue]]
*[[Eigenvector]]
*[[Gram-Schmidt process]]
*[[Hermitian matrix]]
*[[Jordan canonical form]]
*[[Laplacian]]
*[[Linear independence]]
*[[Matrix diagonalization]]
*[[Matrix reformation]]
*[[Matrix transformation]]
*[[Orthogonal matrix]]
*[[Orthonormal matrix]]
*[[Resultant]]
*[[Span]]
*[[Systems of linear equations]]
*[[Transcriptor]]
*[[Wronskian]]

[[Category:Linear algebra]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Natural science

2010-01-07T21:43:54Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Philosophical basis */ Neurons function by electrical stimuli.

{{merge from|Secular Science}}
'''Natural science''' refers to the branches of [[science]] dedicated to study of the natural world.

The best known natural sciences include [[astronomy]], [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biology]].

== Objectivity ==
Science is popularly thought of as being a very objective pursuit, but some evolutionists argue otherwise.

Milford Wolpoff:{{QuoteBox|In my view, “objectivity” does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the framework of the scientist.<ref>Wolpoff, M.H., ''Paleoanthropology'', Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, p. iv, 1999, quoted by Ryan Jaroncyk, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4946/ Turkana Boy—getting past the propaganda] (Creation Ministries International), 21st March 2007.</ref>}}

John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas:{{QuoteBox|…we do know that the popular image of the scientist as a dispassionate seeker after the truth could not be further from reality.<ref>Gribbin, J. and Cherfas, J., ''The First Chimpanzee: In Search of Human Origins'', Penguin Books, London, p. 148, 2001, quoted by Ryan Jaroncyk, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4946/ Turkana Boy—getting past the propaganda] (Creation Ministries International), 21st March 2007.</ref>}}

Nevertheless, the [[scientific method]] and [[peer review]] are intended to ensure that scientific research is done as objectively as possible.

== Beginnings ==

Although some early [[civilization]]s, particularly [[Ancient Greece|Greece]], developed some scholarship, it was not until the 1500s in [[Europe]] that science proper developed. This was due to the prevailing [[Christian]] world view, that taught that the creation was not itself Divine, but was the product of a consistent Creator who didn't change His creation, such as the laws of physics, on a whim.

Loren Eiseley:
{{QuoteBox|The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.<ref>L. Eiseley: ''Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It'' (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961), quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 Chapter 1].</ref>}}

[[Rodney Stark]]:
{{QuoteBox|...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.<ref>Stark, 2003, [http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html introduction].</ref>}}

David A. Noebel:
{{QuoteBox|The fact that science arose at all is powerful testimony to the truth of Christianity. As Louis Victor de Broglie says, "We are not sufficiently astonished by the fact that any science may be possible." This is especially true of the Marxist and the Secular Humanist. They do not understand that science could never have been conceived in a society dominated by their worldviews. Historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki says that "the belief in a personal rational Creator ... as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix ... supported the view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator." Man believed science possible because man believed in a God of reason and order.<ref>Noebel, David A., "The Battle for Truth", p. 355, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2001 ISBN 0-7369-0782-3.</ref>}}

Indeed, many of the early scientists, such as [[Galileo]], [[Johannes Kepler]], and Sir [[Isaac Newton]] were people who believed in the literal truth of Genesis and who based their science on their belief in a Creator.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/ Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

=== Philosophical basis ===

The following philosophical assumptions provide a basis for science.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, "Leaving your Brains at the Church Door", Video 2 of "Retaking the Ground", Creation Ministries International.</ref>
Christianity provides each one.

* '''That the universe is real'''. Not all philosophies believe that the universe really exists.
* '''That the universe is orderly'''. The Bible teaches that God is not the the author of confusion.<ref>{{Bible ref|1_Corinthians|14|33}}</ref> Some other views (e.g. atheistic views) hold that the universe is the result of chance or that the gods are capricious (e.g. ancient Greek religion).
* '''That mankind may investigate the universe'''. Some religions believe that the creation itself is divine, whereas the Bible teaches that God gave man dominion over creation.<ref>{{Bible ref|Genesis|1|28}}</ref>
* '''That our thoughts are rational'''. The Bible teaches that God made man in His image<ref>{{Bible ref|Genesis|1|26}}</ref>, whereas atheism believes that our thoughts are the result of a series of accidents, and our thoughts are merely electrochemical processes.

== Types of science ==

Science can be subdivided into two categories, ''operational science'' and ''origins science''.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, and Matthews, Michael, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3256 Chapter 1]</ref>

'''Operational science''' deals mostly with things in the present, which scientists are able to observe, measure, and test. If, for example, someone claims that water boils at 110 degrees Celsius at sea level, you can test for yourself to see if that is really true (and discover that it's not).

'''Origins science''' deals with things in the past. Scientists do not have the past to observe, measure, and test, so the conclusions of historical science must be somewhat more tentative than empirical science. If, for example, someone claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, it is difficult to formulate an experiment to effectively support or deny this claim. Because of this, origins science tends to function through observation of historical records, as well as extrapolating current data (which ''can'' easily be experimentally validated) into the past. In addition, it is common for theories to be tested on their adherence to the available evidence; for example, the discovery of ''Tiktaalik'' in the predicted strata for a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html</ref>

In some cases, such as astronomy, the distinction between the two becomes somewhat muddled; Due to the finiteness of the speed of light over astronomical distances, current observations of most astronomical phenomena are dealing with the far-distant past, but experiments and observations are easily performed - it is common for a theoretical prediction to be compared with observed data.

== Bibliography ==

Stark, Rodney, ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery'', Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0691114361.

==References==

<references />

[[Category:Natural Sciences]]

Flag of the United States of America

2010-01-07T21:35:41Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Defacement and Misuse of the Flag */ grammar error

[[image:USflag.jpg|thumb|right|400px|The flag of the United States]]
The '''American flag''', often affectionately known as "Old Glory" or the "Stars and Stripes", consists of a blue field with 50 white stars on it (one for each [[state]]), with the remainder being thirteen stripes (7 red and 6 white), in memory of the original thirteen states.

Since the stars reflect the number of states in the US, the flag has changed as the number of states has changed. Originally, the flag (as produced by [[Betsy Ross]]) contained thirteen stars arranged in a circle. The current fifty stars are arranged in five rows of six stars alternating with four rows of five stars.

It is displayed at all [[Federal]] buildings, and many homes and businesses also proudly display it.

== Flag Code ==
The '''United States Flag Code''' (title 4, chapter 1 of the [[United States Code]]) is a [[law]] which describes the official appearance of the Flag of the United States and how it should be handled. The US Flag Code is purely descriptive, and does not include any provisions for enforcement outside of the [[District of Columbia]].

In addition, the US Flag Code codifies the [[Pledge of Allegiance]].

===Appearance of the Flag===
Section one and two describe the official appearance of the US flag. Section one of the Code describes the flag as "thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white," with a [[union (flag)|union]] of "forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." The code, which was passed before the [[1959]] incorporation of [[Alaska]] and [[Hawaii]] as the 49th and 50th states, also makes provisions for updating the flag in section two, adding new stars for new states on the following [[fourth of July]].

===Handling the Flag===
Section three describes how not to handle the flag, and sections five through nine describe how to handle, display, store, and respect the flag.

====Defacement and Misuse of the Flag====
Section 3 describes how the US flag should not be handled, misused, or defaced.

While the bulk of the code is purely descriptive, violating section 3 within the [[District of Columbia]] carries a penalty of "a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court." There is much controversy concerning misuse and abuse of the US flag, and violation of this law is seldom prosecuted.

===Pledge of Allegiance===
Section four describes the [[Pledge of Allegiance]], both codifying its text and describing proper conduct during the Pledge of Allegiance. People in military uniform should silently [[salute]] the flag, while other people should remove any non-religious headgear, and face the flag with their right hand over their heart.

== Flag desecration ==

The '''Flag of the United States''' has sometimes been used in symbolic defacement, often in protest of the policies of the [[United States Government]], both within the country and abroad.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in [[Texas v. Johnson]], 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in [[U.S. v. Eichman]], 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

After these decisions, several "flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Any amendment to the US Constitution must first be passed by Congress and be ratified by a 75% majority, 38 of the 50 states. On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.<ref>[[Boston Globe]] [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/flag_burning_amendment_fails_by_a_vote/ ''Flag-burning amendment fails by a vote'']</ref>.

The [[United States Flag Code]] lists many guidelines for the use and display of the flag, many of which are largely ignored. For example :
"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform".
The flag "should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper".
Flags are even used sometimes as carpeting, violating such guidelines as not allowing the flag to touch the ground, not displaying it in a horizontal position, and not displaying it in a manner which is likely to allow it to get soiled.

The ritualized burning of the American flag is described in the [[United States Flag Code]] as an appropriate way to dispose of a damaged or soiled flag. Flags are burned in respectful retirement ceremonies by the [[American Legion]], [[Boy Scouts]], The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the [[Daughters of the American Revolution]], and the Sons of the American Legion.

Flying an American flag upside down is not necessarily disrespectful. The practice has its origin in a military distress signal; displaying a flag in this manner is "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property", it has been used by extension to make a statement about distress in civic, political, or other areas.
----
{| border="1" align="center" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="700" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="5"|
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: blue no-repeat scroll top left;"|History of the flag of the United States
|-
|-
| [[Image:13 star flag.PNG|125px]]
| [[Image:15 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:20 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:21 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:23 star flag.png|125px]]
|-
| June 14, 1777 to May 1, 1795
| May 1, 1795 to July 3, 1818
| July 4, 1818 to July 3, 1819
| July 4, 1819 to July 3, 1820
| July 4, 1820 to July 3, 1822
|-
| [[Image:24 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:25 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:26 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:27 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:28 star flag.png|125px]]
|-
| July 4, 1822 to July 3, 1836
| July 4, 1836 to July 3, 1837
| July 4, 1837 to July 3, 1845
| July 4, 1845 to July 3, 1846
| July 4, 1846 to July 3, 1847
|-
| [[Image:29 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:30 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:31 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:32 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:33 star flag.png|125px]]
|-
| July 4, 1847 to July 3, 1848
| July 4, 1848 to July 3, 1851
| July 4, 1851 to July 3, 1858
| July 4, 1858 to July 3, 1859
| July 4, 1859 to July 3, 1861
|-
| [[Image:34 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:35 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:36 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:37 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:38 star flag.png|125px]]
|-
| July 4, 1861 to July 3, 1863
| July 4, 1863 to July 3, 1865
| July 4, 1865 to July 3, 1867
| July 4, 1867 to July 3, 1877
| July 4, 1877 to July 3, 1890
|-
| [[Image:43 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:44 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:45 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:46 star flag.png|125px]]
| [[Image:48 star flag.png|125px]]
|-
| July 4, 1890 t0 July 3, 1891
| July 4, 1891 to July 3, 1896
| July 4, 1896 to July 3, 1908
| July 4, 1908 to July 3, 1912
| July 4, 1912 to July 3, 1959
|-
| [[Image:50 star flag.png|125px]]
|-
| July 4, 1960 to present
|}

==See also==
[[American historical flags]]

==External links==
*[http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title4/chapter1_.html The text of Title 4 of the United States Code, Chapter 1] hosted by the [[Government Printing Office]]'s GPO Access
*[http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html USHistory.org] on handling and treatment of the US Flag

[[Category:United States of America]]
[[Category: National Flags]]

Satan

2010-01-07T21:32:53Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Dante and Milton */ cleaned up unsourced statement

[[Image:GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile.jpg|right|thumb|Gustave Doré's depiction of Satan from John Milton's Paradise Lost.]]
'''Satan''' or the '''Devil''' is the embodiment of evil, and plays a major role in Christian theology and literature, as well as in many other religions, and nowadays used as an epithet for profoundly evil people.

In western art and popular culture the devil is used to represent evil influences or motivations.

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

== History==
In Christianity Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). In the book of [[Genesis]], Satan takes the form of a snake and tempts Eve with fruit from a tree. This causes sin to come into the world. Kelly (2006) demonstrates how assumptions--such as the identification of the Eden serpent with Satan, probably first made by Justin Martyr in the second century--have hardened into fact.

Satan, in the Book of Job, listens to God speak highly of Job and accuses Job to God before the host of angels that Job praises God only because he is blessed and would curse God if he was forced to suffer. God allows Satan to do what he will except to spare his life, and Satan causes Job to suffer immensely. (Job remained true to God through his hardships; Satan accused him further and punished him further, but could not get Job to break).

[[Jesus]] makes references to demonic possession on multiple occasions that He then casts out. Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth even today. Even more, some others believe that Satan actually has done this in the past as well. The Catholic church believes that priests (and sometimes only bishops) are able to [[exorcise]] this possession through Jesus.

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

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

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

=== Lucifer ===

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

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

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

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

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

== Jewish Views ==

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

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

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

==Dante and Milton==
The classic literary depictions of Satan appear in Dante's Italian poem, "Inferno," and in [[John Milton]]'s English poem, "Paradise Lost." These are considered by some to be the two greatest poems in Italian and English literature, respectively.

==See also==
* [[Devil]]
* [[Salem Witch Trials]]
==Further reading==
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: I. In the Old Testament," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1913), pp. 29-33 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142352 in JSTOR]
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: II. Satan in Extra-Biblical Apocalyptical Literature," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 2 (Feb., 1913), pp. 98-102 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142425 in JSTOR]
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: III. In the New Testament," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 3 (Mar., 1913), pp. 167-172 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142755 in JSTOR]
* Empson, William. ''Milton's God'' (1966)
* Jacobs, Joseph, and Ludwig Blau. "Satan," ''The Jewish Encyclopedia'' (1906) [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=Satan#ixzz0UQlw0zPS online] pp 68-71
* Kelly, Henry Ansgar. ''Satan: A Biography.'' (2006). 360 pp. [http://books.google.com/books?id=gPIpQg0lRbMC&pg=PA12&dq=intitle:satan+inauthor:kelly&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpt and text search]ISBN 0-521-60402-8, a study of the Bible and Western literature
* Kent, William. "Devil." ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) Vol. 4. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm online older article]
* Osborne, B. A. E. "Peter: Stumbling-Block and Satan," ''Novum Testamentum,'' Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 187-190 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560340 in JSTOR] on "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
* Rebhorn Wayne A. "The Humanist Tradition and Milton's Satan: The Conservative as Revolutionary," ''Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900,'' Vol. 13, No. 1, The English Renaissance (Winter, 1973), pp. 81-93 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/449871 in JSTOR]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Perceptions-Antiquity-Christianity-Paperbacks/dp/0801494095/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Satan: The Early Christian Tradition'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Christian-Jeffrey-Burton-Russell/dp/0801494133/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages'' (1986) [http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Devil-Middle-Cornell-Paperbacks/dp/080149429X/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Mephistopheles-Modern-Jeffrey-Burton-Russell/dp/0801497183/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Darkness-Radical-Power-History/dp/0801480566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255995689&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schaff, D. S. "Devil" in ''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), [[Mainline]] Protestant; vol 3 pp 414-417 [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.d.iii.html online]
* Scott, Miriam Van. ''The Encyclopedia of Hell'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Hell-Miriam-Van-Scott/dp/0312244428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search] comparative religions; also popular culture
* Wray, T. J. and Gregory Mobley. ''The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Satan-Tracing-Devils-Biblical/dp/1403969337/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

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

Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre

2010-01-07T20:18:07Z

DanieleGiusto:

"The deaf man had insisted on being paid for his rifle before giving it up. In the ensuing scuffle, the weapon discharged. Other armed Indians pointed their rifles at the soldiers, who then began shooting."

I'm sorry, but I'm a native american (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of South Dakota) and the deaf man did not want his rifle paid for. It was taken from him, and he didn't know what they were doing. And the other indians did not point their rifles at them, other nearby solders thought that it was the native american that shot at them, so they shot back. --[[User:BenjaminLe|BenjaminLe]] 15:07, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:Ben, I agree. This article (especially the last portion) comes across as disrespectful to an entire people. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 15:18, 7 January 2010 (EST)

American Indian

2010-01-07T20:13:22Z

DanieleGiusto: Grammar error

'''American Indians''' are the descendants of the inhabitants of [[North America|North]] and [[South America]] before the coming of [[Europe]]ans in 1492. Another term, "[[Native American]]", is sometimes also used to refer to American Indians in order to distinguish them from the people of [[India]], and to emphasize their North American ancestry.

== Sovereignty ==
In the [[United States]] there are 562 Native American tribes that retain their independent sovereignty.

== Origins ==
The widely taught theory that American Indians are descendants of migrants from [[Asia]], who crossed the [[Bering Strait|Bering Straitland bridge]] during an [[Ice Age]], is almost certainly false. [[Liberal]] archaeologists long insisted that this took place as early as 10,000 years ago.<ref name="who">TIME - Who Were The First Americans?, By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK, ANDREA DORFMAN, Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006 [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169905,00.html]</ref> But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd.<ref>For example, American Indians have among the highest percentage for any ethnicity of blood type "O", while Asians have the lowest percentage. As another example, American Indian fingerprint patterns are strikingly different from Asians'.</ref> Recent linguistic study shows no connection between American Indian and East Asian language, and archaeological evidence shows that each population used fundamentally different tools, suggesting no technology transfer via migration.<ref>Fortescue, Michael D., ''Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence,'' 87-108.</ref>

People today who are only partly descended from those early American Indians are still considered to be American Indians if they maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. However, each Indian tribe or band has its own definitions regarding membership, some based on historical tradition, others based on rules (like blood quanta) imposed by the US Government.

In 1996 there was a discovery of fragments of a skeleton called the [[Kennewick Man]]. But serious doubts about the authenticity of these remains have resulted in litigation and criticism. Some claimed that [[radiocarbon dating]] supported an age of more than 9000 years.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/kennewickman.html</ref> The morphology of the Kennewick Man remains is said to differ from that of present day Native Americans, suggesting a different ancestry<ref>http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick.html</ref> but there remains significant controversy about that.<ref name="who" />

Despite this controversy, there has been significant evidence that certain Indian tribes do have ties to Asian peoples. For instance, numerous American Indians and Mongolians share a physical trait, known as "shovel tooth" in which the incisor has a distinctive shovel-like shape. According to geneticists, this cannot be a coincidence. <ref>http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Tooth_morphology/adult_variation_morph.htm</ref> Another interesting piece of evidence has to do with skull measurements. According to skull measurements done in 2001 at the University of Michigan, scientists have suggested that Blackfoot, Sioux, and Cherokee Indians may have descended from the ancient, indigenous Jomon people of Japan, and related to the Ainu ethnic minority on the island of Hokkaido.<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/293/5532/1043a</ref>

=== Creationist explanations ===
Some [[creation scientists]] have pointed to the American Indian population's lack of any ties to other populations as evidence of biblical veracity. The population was established after the destruction of the Tower of [[Babel]], as God dispersed the nations, their languages, and skills.<ref>Ronald L. Numbers, ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design,'' 467.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[North American Indians]]
* [[Native American]]
* [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]

[[Category:Ethnicities]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:South America]]

Edmund Ward Poor

2010-01-07T20:12:11Z

DanieleGiusto: Obscure Grandson reference unnecessary.

'''Ed Poor''' was the co-founder and first treasurer of [[Grumman Aircraft Company]] in [[Long Island]]. He died in the late 1960s.

{{quotebox|Grumman Corporation first opened its doors for business in 1930 in a small unused garage in Baldwin, New York. Founded by Leroy R. Grumman, and his partners Leon "Jake" Swirbul, Bill Schwendler, Clint Towl and Ed Poor, this small enterprise began by making floats for Vought scout aircraft. [http://www.anft.net/f-14/grumman-gmp.htm] }}

{{quotebox|Grumman and his partners (Edmund Ward Poor, William Schwendler, Jake Swirbul, and Clint Towl) started their own company in an old Cox-Klemin Aircraft Co. factory in Baldwin on Long Island, NY. [http://www.scripophily.net/graienconewy.html] }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Poor, Edward}}
[[category:biographies]]

Jack Thompson

2010-01-07T20:07:31Z

DanieleGiusto: added profession

'''John Bruce "Jack" Thompson''' is a former lawyer and an outspoken and effective critic of video games and their role in inciting violence by children. [[Liberals]] have vilified him because he has exposed the harm done by video games.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:law]]

Talk:New Mexico

2010-01-07T05:01:05Z

DanieleGiusto: Created page with 'Georgia O'Keefe isn't actually from New Mexico (although she is much beloved by the the state in general, and she lived there for a large period of her life). ~~~~'

Georgia O'Keefe isn't actually from New Mexico (although she is much beloved by the the state in general, and she lived there for a large period of her life). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:01, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Jack Thompson

2010-01-07T04:43:17Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Expand the article */

==Expand the article==
Should we bring up Penny Arcade? That's where the vilification has been coming from, although Mr. Thompson is rather stubborn. Obviously that need not be in the article since that doesn't support your point of view. That said, this is a contentious topic that you would do well to build on (I've only fixed a spelling mistake, since I know that if I wrote the article I would end up banned because I support the video gaming industry and video gaming culture). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 21:53, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:What is Penny Arcade and what does it have to do with this article? Explain what you'd like to see in the article, here, on the talk page, and maybe we'll put it in. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:58, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::Penny Arcade is a webcomic that caters to video gamers, and Mr. Thompson had a spat of sorts with the creators of the comic, where he (jokingly, he claims) offered $10k to anybody who created a shoot-em-up video game where the victims are the CEOs of violent video game companies. When some programmers did create the game he suggested, he refused to pay the money, so the creators of Penny Arcade did so instead. I'll add it in when I find a source. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:49, 27 December 2009 (EST)

:::Other than Penny Arcade, some video gamers are on a crusade to smear their critics, and especially Jack Thompson. There's little doubt that video games are causing significant harm to kids who become addicted to them, and to innocent people victimized by them. Mr. Thompson should be praised, not vilified, for standing up against the vile industry. It is doubtful that his "offer" was legally binding and fully satisfied (presumably it meant selling and promoting such a game like the others), and this issue at best a distraction from more important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::::Your observations provide more insight than the article does, so perhaps we should put something to this effect in the article. You're absolutely right, the original "modest proposal" does require that the game be sold, although free downloads are readily available. In sum, Jack Thompson could use some good conservative defenders, and the only portion of this article that provides that viewpoint is the word "effective." If he's effective, then what effect has he had (other than being disbarred, poor fellow)? [[User:DanieleGiusto]] 23:42, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Jack Thompson

2010-01-07T04:42:07Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Expand the article */

Log Cabin Republicans

2010-01-07T04:33:38Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Beliefs */ Subject-verb agreement error

The '''Log Cabin Republicans''' is a political organization in the [[United States]] given prominence by the media that exceeds its actual membership. The group consists of [[homosexuals]] who claim to support the [[Republican Party]] but are actually dedicated to advancing portions of the [[homosexual agenda]] and opposing [[conservatives]] within the party. The Log Cabin Republicans voted 22-2 against supporting President George W. Bush in 2004,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5941189/</ref> making its opposition to the Republican nominee higher than than many rank-and-file [[Democratic Party]] organizations.

Further demonstrating its ''opposition'' to real Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans expelled its own chapter in Palm Beach, Florida for continuing to publicly support the reelection of [[Republican]] President [[George W. Bush]] in 2004.<ref>[http://www.washblade.com/2004/11-12/news/national/explain.cfm][http://upmeads.blogspot.com/2004/10/palm-beach-log-cabin-chapter-gets-boot.html][http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3904-2005Mar26.html]</ref>

An insightful commentary about the Log Cabin Republicans compared it to "termites":<ref>http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2007/02/jhreport-exclusive-log-cabin_07.html</ref>

:There is virtually no difference between the Log Cabin Republicans' assault on Christian values within the GOP and that of the [[ACLU]] or any number of other anti-christian groups in America. From promoting gay marriage to participating in pornographic gay pride parades, the Log Cabin Republicans defy every moral concept articulated in Christian Conservative circles. Why do the Log Cabin Republicans even maintain membership within the Republican Party? Look to the termite and the answer is clear. Like the termite, the Log Cabin Republicans have targeted an already existing structure, built by human hands, from which they can feed their political appetite and agenda. The aftermath, much like the resulting effect on a house after termites have had their way, is a destroyed conservative Republican Party. In effect, the Log Cabin Republicans are the best friends that socialist Democrats like liberal Congressman [[Barney Frank]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] have ever had. Truly, the Log Cabin Republicans have earned the well-deserved title of being named America's Political Termites.

== Beliefs ==

Despite opposing the reelection of President [[George W. Bush]] by more than a 10:1 margin, the leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans insists that its members "are loyal Republicans."<ref>[http://online.logcabin.org/about/] Log Cabin Republicans' website</ref>

==Peter LaBarbera States Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Its Website ==
[[Peter LaBarbera]] who is president of Americans for Truth, which is an organization that opposes the [[homosexual agenda]], stated the following:
{{cquote|With the efficiency of a [[Joseph Stalin|Stalinist]] historian, the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) has purged this photograph of former Florida Rep. [[Mark Foley]], disgraced homosexual and seducer of teenaged boys, from its website. Foley was among the politicians and pundits whom LCR proudly recorded as speaking at its 2003 national convention in Washington, D.C. But they’re not so proud anymore.<ref>http://www.gaywrongs.com/news/log-cabin-republicans-erase-photo-of-predator-mark-foley-from-website.html</ref>}}

[[Concerned Women for America]] wrote:
{{cquote|[Foley’s] voting record on gay rights has become a controversial issue. He's campaigning across Florida for the U.S. Senate. The people have a right to know,” Norman wrote in a long column May 8. “And dancing around the truth is just getting too weird to abide.”

In the column, Norman quotes Tracy Thorne, a homosexual and activist for homosexuals in the military, saying that Foley brought a “boyfriend” along on a visit to Thorne in the early 1990s.

Foley and his spokesman say they will not answer reporters’ questions about his “personal life.” The [[homosexuality|homosexual]] newspaper ''Washington Blade'' was told the same when it asked spokesman Kirk Fordham “point blank if Foley is gay.”<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4008/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref>}}

The group [[Family Research Council]] stated:
{{cquote|Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys.<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J01</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Political Organizations]]

Log Cabin Republicans

2010-01-07T04:32:49Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Peter LaBarbera States Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Its Website */ fixed another grammar error

The '''Log Cabin Republicans''' is a political organization in the [[United States]] given prominence by the media that exceeds its actual membership. The group consists of [[homosexuals]] who claim to support the [[Republican Party]] but are actually dedicated to advancing portions of the [[homosexual agenda]] and opposing [[conservatives]] within the party. The Log Cabin Republicans voted 22-2 against supporting President George W. Bush in 2004,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5941189/</ref> making its opposition to the Republican nominee higher than than many rank-and-file [[Democratic Party]] organizations.

Further demonstrating its ''opposition'' to real Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans expelled its own chapter in Palm Beach, Florida for continuing to publicly support the reelection of [[Republican]] President [[George W. Bush]] in 2004.<ref>[http://www.washblade.com/2004/11-12/news/national/explain.cfm][http://upmeads.blogspot.com/2004/10/palm-beach-log-cabin-chapter-gets-boot.html][http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3904-2005Mar26.html]</ref>

An insightful commentary about the Log Cabin Republicans compared it to "termites":<ref>http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2007/02/jhreport-exclusive-log-cabin_07.html</ref>

:There is virtually no difference between the Log Cabin Republicans' assault on Christian values within the GOP and that of the [[ACLU]] or any number of other anti-christian groups in America. From promoting gay marriage to participating in pornographic gay pride parades, the Log Cabin Republicans defy every moral concept articulated in Christian Conservative circles. Why do the Log Cabin Republicans even maintain membership within the Republican Party? Look to the termite and the answer is clear. Like the termite, the Log Cabin Republicans have targeted an already existing structure, built by human hands, from which they can feed their political appetite and agenda. The aftermath, much like the resulting effect on a house after termites have had their way, is a destroyed conservative Republican Party. In effect, the Log Cabin Republicans are the best friends that socialist Democrats like liberal Congressman [[Barney Frank]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] have ever had. Truly, the Log Cabin Republicans have earned the well-deserved title of being named America's Political Termites.

== Beliefs ==

Despite opposing the reelection of President [[George W. Bush]] by more than a 10:1 margin, the leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans insist that they "are loyal Republicans."<ref>[http://online.logcabin.org/about/] Log Cabin Republicans' website</ref>

==Peter LaBarbera States Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Its Website ==
[[Peter LaBarbera]] who is president of Americans for Truth, which is an organization that opposes the [[homosexual agenda]], stated the following:
{{cquote|With the efficiency of a [[Joseph Stalin|Stalinist]] historian, the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) has purged this photograph of former Florida Rep. [[Mark Foley]], disgraced homosexual and seducer of teenaged boys, from its website. Foley was among the politicians and pundits whom LCR proudly recorded as speaking at its 2003 national convention in Washington, D.C. But they’re not so proud anymore.<ref>http://www.gaywrongs.com/news/log-cabin-republicans-erase-photo-of-predator-mark-foley-from-website.html</ref>}}

[[Concerned Women for America]] wrote:
{{cquote|[Foley’s] voting record on gay rights has become a controversial issue. He's campaigning across Florida for the U.S. Senate. The people have a right to know,” Norman wrote in a long column May 8. “And dancing around the truth is just getting too weird to abide.”

In the column, Norman quotes Tracy Thorne, a homosexual and activist for homosexuals in the military, saying that Foley brought a “boyfriend” along on a visit to Thorne in the early 1990s.

Foley and his spokesman say they will not answer reporters’ questions about his “personal life.” The [[homosexuality|homosexual]] newspaper ''Washington Blade'' was told the same when it asked spokesman Kirk Fordham “point blank if Foley is gay.”<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4008/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref>}}

The group [[Family Research Council]] stated:
{{cquote|Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys.<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J01</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Political Organizations]]

Log Cabin Republicans

2010-01-07T04:31:52Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Peter LaBarbera States Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Its Website */ fixed grammar error

The '''Log Cabin Republicans''' is a political organization in the [[United States]] given prominence by the media that exceeds its actual membership. The group consists of [[homosexuals]] who claim to support the [[Republican Party]] but are actually dedicated to advancing portions of the [[homosexual agenda]] and opposing [[conservatives]] within the party. The Log Cabin Republicans voted 22-2 against supporting President George W. Bush in 2004,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5941189/</ref> making its opposition to the Republican nominee higher than than many rank-and-file [[Democratic Party]] organizations.

Further demonstrating its ''opposition'' to real Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans expelled its own chapter in Palm Beach, Florida for continuing to publicly support the reelection of [[Republican]] President [[George W. Bush]] in 2004.<ref>[http://www.washblade.com/2004/11-12/news/national/explain.cfm][http://upmeads.blogspot.com/2004/10/palm-beach-log-cabin-chapter-gets-boot.html][http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3904-2005Mar26.html]</ref>

An insightful commentary about the Log Cabin Republicans compared it to "termites":<ref>http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2007/02/jhreport-exclusive-log-cabin_07.html</ref>

:There is virtually no difference between the Log Cabin Republicans' assault on Christian values within the GOP and that of the [[ACLU]] or any number of other anti-christian groups in America. From promoting gay marriage to participating in pornographic gay pride parades, the Log Cabin Republicans defy every moral concept articulated in Christian Conservative circles. Why do the Log Cabin Republicans even maintain membership within the Republican Party? Look to the termite and the answer is clear. Like the termite, the Log Cabin Republicans have targeted an already existing structure, built by human hands, from which they can feed their political appetite and agenda. The aftermath, much like the resulting effect on a house after termites have had their way, is a destroyed conservative Republican Party. In effect, the Log Cabin Republicans are the best friends that socialist Democrats like liberal Congressman [[Barney Frank]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] have ever had. Truly, the Log Cabin Republicans have earned the well-deserved title of being named America's Political Termites.

== Beliefs ==

Despite opposing the reelection of President [[George W. Bush]] by more than a 10:1 margin, the leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans insist that they "are loyal Republicans."<ref>[http://online.logcabin.org/about/] Log Cabin Republicans' website</ref>

==Peter LaBarbera States Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Its Website ==
[[Peter LaBarbera]] who is president of Americans for Truth which is an organization that opposes the [[homosexual agenda]] stated the following:
{{cquote|With the efficiency of a [[Joseph Stalin|Stalinist]] historian, the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) has purged this photograph of former Florida Rep. [[Mark Foley]], disgraced homosexual and seducer of teenaged boys, from its website. Foley was among the politicians and pundits whom LCR proudly recorded as speaking at its 2003 national convention in Washington, D.C. But they’re not so proud anymore.<ref>http://www.gaywrongs.com/news/log-cabin-republicans-erase-photo-of-predator-mark-foley-from-website.html</ref>}}

[[Concerned Women for America]] wrote:
{{cquote|[Foley’s] voting record on gay rights has become a controversial issue. He's campaigning across Florida for the U.S. Senate. The people have a right to know,” Norman wrote in a long column May 8. “And dancing around the truth is just getting too weird to abide.”

In the column, Norman quotes Tracy Thorne, a homosexual and activist for homosexuals in the military, saying that Foley brought a “boyfriend” along on a visit to Thorne in the early 1990s.

Foley and his spokesman say they will not answer reporters’ questions about his “personal life.” The [[homosexuality|homosexual]] newspaper ''Washington Blade'' was told the same when it asked spokesman Kirk Fordham “point blank if Foley is gay.”<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4008/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref>}}

The group [[Family Research Council]] stated:
{{cquote|Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys.<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J01</ref>}}

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Political Organizations]]

Talk:Jack Thompson

2009-12-27T23:49:48Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Expand the article */

Talk:Soccer

2009-12-22T22:42:29Z

DanieleGiusto:

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Fun fact: "calcio" also means calcium! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 17:42, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: ''It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted.'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquín and Nate, you seen to be working the most on this article. Can I make a suggestion? We should have a section with Rules (this would be a good place for the Soccer Pitch image) and then another section with world popularity, the [[World Cup]], [[FIFA]] and great players. Unfortunately I don't think I know enough about the sport to make significant contributions. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: Welcome to the soccer team. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great Players ==

I've tried to make this more representative. Any other suggestions? (Alberto di Stefano? Bobby Charlton? Gordon Banks? Bobby Moore? Michel Platini?) And what about the pre-war era? I imagine most of the names there would come from English or Scottish club football. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Pornography

2009-12-20T05:43:50Z

DanieleGiusto: /* Liberal wants to help! */

* There is a draft of a proposed new version [[/draft|here]].

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Might that comment be intended to refer to the Song of Solomon? - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of p.enises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

: I'm not convinced by this. I wonder if we can make the distinction that pornography is solely concerned with sexual arousal and gratification through the graphic depiction of sexual acts, and that works of literary and artistic merit can contain passages of explicit sexuality that function as an integral part of the total work but are not intended purely for purposes of sexual gratification. The famous example of this in English law was, of course, the 1963 trial involving Penguin books and the [[D.H.Lawrence]] novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover''. I have read that, and it's true to say that the passages objected to in 1963 are fairly graphic (though perhaps less so by today's standards). However, they are not the central point of the book, and their purpose is not arousal but a deepening of understanding of the themes of the nove. IMHO they add a great deal to the overall merit of the work. Personally, I found a book like ''American Psycho'' a great deal more distressing in that it explicitly ties sexuality to graphic violence. It seems invidious to me to single out the depiction of erotica as pornography while ignoring the graphic depictions of violence that seem to pass unnoticed. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] I think if you look at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] you’ll find a draft of an article that addresses some (but not all) of your concerns. Please add any relevant information to the draft. We are trying to get it into good enough shape that it can replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It still lacks a paragraph about the psychology/sociology behind pornography, but, it's definitely a lot better than the current version.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I have no idea where to start on that paragraph as it stands the draft is touching the far edges of what I feel comfortable writing on (any more and I worry a bad source could steer me wrong). But if you point me to a good source I’ll work on it, or you could add it yourself – feel free to treat the draft like the article, improve it as you can.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

shuld be in the Sexual sins catagory--[[User:Bloodsliver|duo]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Needs Citations ==

to be in line with commandment 5. This page states much opinion and needs to be fixed by one of the people with the power to do it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

But speaking of citations... why are we linking to an ''islamic'' site? I'm sure the intention was good, but this is a ''christian'' encyclopedia... we shouldn't link to a site that promotes a false religion like that without a very good reason. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Needs deletion ==

Simply put: terrible. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code> 18:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:A draft (which I think is much better) is being worked on. See somewhere above for a link to said draft. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I came to this page to try to add a UK context but see that it uneditable. This is the sort of thing I was going to add.

"In the UK pornography continues to be used by the mass circulation tabloids to bolster sales. Since the 1970's the UK 'red-top' tabloids, in particular the News International Corp owned 'Sun' and the 'Daily Star' have used images of naked or semi-naked women to attract a readership of B2,C,D males. They then fill other pages in the paper with biased articles pushing their political viewpoint in an attempt to control clearly influencible minds. The Sun in particular influenced the result of the 1992 General election with their pornography-ridden viewpoint that they claimed to have won the election.

Other tabloids such as the 'Daily Sport' and the 'Daily Express' are owned by David Sullivan and Richard Desmond, both of whom made their fortunes in pornography before moving into newspapers."

Can this be added please. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 17:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Please add it to the draft at [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] . The draft is editable and the better it is the more likely we are to get it to replace the current article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've done that now. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
: What does "B2,C,D" mean? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It a form a categorization of people by social position and available income. A's are higher earner or those with wealth, B's not quite so much, B2,C & D are the classifications for either unskilled manual labour, the unemployed or the underclass. In the US this equates to blue collar etc. These were the groups considered most easily influenced by pornography and propaganda. Without their media-led political bias in the 1980's the political landscape of Britain would have been very different. That's why I added my bit in the Social Effects of Pornography section in the new draft. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 18:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Addiction ==

Pornography can be addictive, according to some source, especially ones involving violence. This fact should be added onto the article. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 22:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal wants to help! ==

Okay, I am liberal. I admit it. I accept that conservatives and/or Christians do not like pornography, etc. and I respect your decisions. My ex-boyfriend is a Christian and didn't view porn and was waiting until marriage, etc. so I understand how people like you guys think (we're still friends). As much as I'd love to edit articles like this one, the abortion one, and the cannabis one for content, I understand that this is a conservative website and I would gladly respect that and maintain your right-winged perspectives. I am mainly on this site because I want to broaden my horizons and see what the other side of the arguments are. I'm curious about the right-winged perspective, and even though I don't agree, I respect it and want to understand it.

Now, here's my problem with conservapedia. It's not that this is conservative. You guys have every right to post this conservatively biased stuff because you're up front about it and say you're conservative and don't try to hide it. You display it proudly. More power to you. My problem is that a lot of these entries use vague words like "very bad" or, in the case of this porn article, you say that porn "has an effect." That is quite vague. How is it bad? What are the effects? What is "very" bad? Furthermore, many sentences in this site are just poorly written, grammatically speaking, and it is difficult to read. If you want respect from the liberal world, at least take the time to sound intelligent, back up everything with lots and lots of sources, use good grammar and strong vocabulary. "Very bad" is not a strong choice of words. "Harmful" might be. Then again, once you say "harmful," you'll have to say WHY it's harmful. In the sentence "everything is a perversion of one sort of another" ... well, "of" should be "or." I recognize this is a common typo, but I would love to edit it and make this site better! There's hundreds of entries where it is just poorly written and I'd love to edit it JUST FOR FLUIDITY. In other words, so it's more readable, free from typos and other errors, etc. Also, there are some things which are obviously biased, but I don't think has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, such as the use of "he" in this article. Anyone, male or female, can be desensitized to sex via porn, and as a female who happens to enjoy porn, I think that this article should recognize that people of both genders view porn, and that sex is not as stereotypically male as many people would like you to believe. After all, it takes two...

I've worked with a number of newspapers and I study linguistics. I've won numerous awards for my writing and read countless books on how to persuade people with words and make the most use out of every word. I regularly edit my peer's essays and I do not change their opinions, but make their opinions come across as stronger through a better method of writing. I would love to do this for this website, but unfortunately I am blocked from editing most articles because they are controversial and have been locked. I could probably find other examples of unclear sentences, but I can't remember which articles I have looked at.

Keep up your beliefs. It takes all kinds to make up this world, and we need both conservative and liberal viewpoints. I'd love to help you guys, but you consistently block me. Oh well. Your loss.

Peace.

-Neko1337

:I don't think the number of locked articles are as bad as you seem to think. Surely there are ''some'' that you'd be interested in editing that are not locked. And once the administrators see that you are doing a good job, they might even be willing to unlock articles for you to tidy up.
:I suspect that the original author(s) use male pronouns in a generic way, not specifically indicating males.
:I improved the article a little bit in line with your comments (but I agree it could do with more).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Pornography consumers are overwhelmingly male (by a nearly 3:1 margin), so the only substantive point made by "Neko" above is not persuasive.[http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Candy often contains chocolate, so lollipops may cause you to suffocate in your sleep. Sorry for the non sequitur; I was just pointing out that the above argument doesn't have any clear connection from clause 1 to clause 2. "The only substantive point?" Of course, you're referring to the lack of fluidity on many locked articles, right? Oh, and I recognize that "Neko" (you go girl) has a couple of typos here and there, but her points comes across strongly. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:43, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::: I didn't know the actual figures, but yes, I had meant to mention something along those lines also. Nevertheless, I gather (it's just an impression) that pornography use by females is on the increase. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I read somewhere (I actually think it was a claim by Pat Robertson, so take it with a grain of salt) that women tend more to read erotic literature.

In any event, I think it's very interesting to present this from both a Christian and an Islamic perspective, as Ed has done here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 11:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why porn is actually bad ==
Should we sight more sources for why pornography is bad...maybe we should offer counterpoints to why pornography is bad, then shown arguements against those to make our case stronger. {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}

==Him Vs Her and Person==
Why are all the references to males?
"Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different '''women'''''(my girl isn't interested in women)''; true eros says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person"

"Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes '''him''' more withdrawn, and makes '''him''' view '''others''' ''(and other males?)'' like objects rather than the people they are."

I wanted my girlfriend to look at this page because she does use porn quite regularly much to my disappointment. Its something we are trying to deal with and work through, but the inherit bias toward males in the article has turned her attention to topics of feminism and such and the original point of asking her to read this as been lost on her. --[[User:DjWizard|DjWizard]] 20:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get your point - or if I do, I disagree with it. We assume a porn user is a man, the same way we assume a nurse is a woman. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::And both assumptions would be invalid some of the time. My general answer is that "male" terms are actually generic terms (as "man" is a reference to a member of "mankind"), although some specific instances might bear being reworded. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't see oyur problem with you Girlfriend looking at porn, I mean, is it causing any actual relationship problems? {{unsigned|Kaji132007}}
:You don't see a problem with portraying someone in a degrading manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

==Religious perspectives==

Perhaps it's time to re-visit this issue. Much as it is a touchy subject, it does need to be addressed. A well-balanced and scholarly article would explain why it's bad, and not (as "Neko" suggested) merely make general assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography actually lowers rape rate ==

I was looking at statistics for rape rate in Japan, and It would seem that pornography and rape are inversely related. As porn sales go up, rape rates go down. Should we include this in the article? {{unsigned|Bias}}

: "It would seem"—seems rather uncertain to me. Is the source on-line? If so, post it here (on this talk page) and we can look into it further.

No, sorry, it's not online. If you would like, look in to it. [[User:Bias|Bias]] 22:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I do remember seeing an article that pointed out that pornography has become much more widely available in recent years, because of the Internet, and in that same time, the rate for rapes in the U.S. has gone down, although the article pointed out that law enforcement procedures had improved over that time too. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the article or where I saw it, but it's an aspect of the issue that's worth investigating.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html [[User:Walkie|Walkie]] 16:26, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Useful external link==

Despite its misleading introduction, the following is not a porn site:
[http://www.xxxchurch.com The #1 Christian Porn site] - includes accountability software, forums for couples, men, women, and teens... and useful articles. Anti-porn merchandise too! xD [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Would these be the xxxchurch forums where debate reigns and the notorious Suricou patrols? They can get quite hostile at times. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Can this be unlocked? I realize it's a touchy subject, but it needs some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Cite #1==

How can a reference back up an opinion with another opinion? Is there any proof of either of these claims? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:34, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Now that I've messed it all up, which ref were you talking about? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== Market forces ==

It should be considered that if there was no market for it then pornography (or erotica or anything else) would not exist. The fact that a very large part of the internet, content of mainstream movies, and "adult" publications , fairly clearly shows that there is a market for such material. Rather than fight to ban such materials (which is somewhat like prohibition , which didnt work very well) more effort in educating peoples to renounce them is needed. Its somewhat interesting that in polls no one admits to buying magazines like Playboy and yet it sells a lot of copies. Certainly those forms which are illegal should be prosecuted or some arrangement made to block access (if originating in another country). In the United States this subject is considered a First Amendment issue , the right of free expession. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Using your argument for a moment; try replacing "pornography" with "crack cocaine". Doesn't sound like a very good argument then does it? We need to go after all the pornography that is polluting our world just like we go after hard drugs in this country. There is little difference to The Lord between a playboy and a crack pipe. It encourages lustful feelings, which is a sin. Need I say more? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 18:47, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== This page needs to be locked. ==

This pages seems to get vandalized quite often. Can a mod lock it before some idiot starts adding pictures? - [[Georgearnold]]

Talk:Joseph Lieberman

2009-12-20T05:25:03Z

DanieleGiusto: /* "Openly" Jewish? */ new section

Shouldn't this rightfully be titled "Joseph Lieberman" ?

== "Openly" Jewish? ==

why would anybody feel the need to attach the qualifier "openly" to Jewish? I propose we remove the word "openly" since it has no relevance. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:25, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia:Points of view

2009-12-16T05:02:01Z

DanieleGiusto: Spelling correction

{{policy proposal}}

'''Points of view''' (POV) are ideas or attitudes which people have, and they are especially controversial when they touch on religion or politics.

Strongly one-sided, preconceived views are everywhere. One wag said, "Opinions are like noses: everyone has one, and they all smell." (This is the G-rated version. ;-)

'''We're not here to make you feel better about your predetermined views. Expect to learn things on this site that will challenge your views.'''

Editors of Conversapedia articles should be more open-minded in some cases, or should refrain from contributing to topics on which they are intolerant of opposing POV.

Talk:Jack Thompson

2009-12-16T02:53:49Z

DanieleGiusto: Created page with '==Expand the article== Should we bring up Penny Arcade? That's where the vilification has been coming from, although Mr. Thompson is rather stubborn. Obviously that need not be...'

Jack Thompson

2009-12-16T02:50:39Z

DanieleGiusto: Single spelling correction

'''John Bruce "Jack" Thompson''' has been an outspoken and effective critic of video games and their role in inciting violence by children. [[Liberals]] have vilified him because he has exposed the harm done by video games.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:law]]

Paul Krugman

2009-12-14T22:21:37Z

DanieleGiusto: added current activity (Krugman as a blogger)

'''Paul Krugman''' (born February 28, 1953) is the 2008 Nobel [[Economics|Economic]] Prize winner (Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences). He is an American [[professor]] at [[Princeton University]] and a [[liberal]] Op-Ed columnist for ''[[The New York Times]]''.

Krugman is the author of several books; the best known is ''The Conscience of a Liberal'' (October 2007).

Krugman currently blogs for the [[Huffington Post]] and [[The New York Times]], often advocating health reform and further economic stimulus.

"I think we've learned this when we see Joe Stiglitz writing," Krugman said, referring to the winner of the economics Nobel in 2001. "I haven't noticed him getting an easy time. People just say, 'Sure, he's a great Nobel laureate and he's very smart, but he still doesn't know what he's talking about in this situation.' I'm sure I'll get the same thing." <ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/13/america/13nobel.php</ref>
}}

== See also ==

''NPR’s Siegel Helps Krugman Lie Human Events''

''Siegel’s interview of Paul Krugman was "a liberal love fest of junk economics and revisionist political history. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, 'You are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.'"'' [[Main Page/Previous Conservapedia Breaking News/Archives/October 2007]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22787 NPR’s Siegel Helps Krugman Lie]
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406080847.asp Ocialist-say Economics]

== References ==
<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Krugman, Paul}}

[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Economics]]

Talk:Liberal

2009-12-14T18:26:07Z

DanieleGiusto: /* If you want anyone to take you seriously... */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)