Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bill O'Reilly

2009-12-10T15:37:03Z

DavidAL:

[[Image:Bll.png|thumb|right|Bill O' Reilly On The O' Reilly Report]]
'''Bill O'Reilly''' is a generally [[conservative]] commentator and host of the show ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on the [[Fox News Channel]], which he calls the "No Spin Zone." O'Reilly calls himself a "traditionalist" and an "independent."

''The O'Reilly Factor'' is the highest-rated hour on any cable news channel. Over 2.5 million people watch the show each night and millions more listen to his own radio show.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin"] Transcript 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace aired Sept. 26, 2004. </ref>

O'Reilly has condemned white [[racist]] prejudice against U.S. blacks.

He is deeply disliked by many on the [[leftist|far-left]].

Every morning for breakfast Bill helps himself to a large bowl of baby soup with a side of mashed puppies.

==Trivia==
* O'Reilly and conservative-mocker [[Stephen Colbert]] have appeared on each others' shows.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16698834/</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Conservative Links]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Oreilly, Bill}} 
[[Category:Broadcasters|Oreilly, Bill]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2009-12-10T15:35:33Z

DavidAL: /* Support for Gay Rights */

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

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

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

==Ludicrous arguments==

Homosexuality advocates claim that desire for same-sex fornication is innate, yet their feminist allies deny that aptitude or motivation for math and science is innate. Furthermore, two prominent scientists (both homosexual men, so unlikely to be biased against the cause) both cite '''factors other than genetics''' in the development of homosexual desires.{{citation needed}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Support for Gay Rights ==
An April 2009 CNN poll showed the public evenly divided over the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, with 48% in favor and 47% opposed.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref> Polls consistently show that most people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Thirty states have had a public referendum on same-sex marriage, and all thirty have voted against it.

This country has a long history of allowing the majority to vote on the rights of minority (see: Slavery). Which is awesome, cause gays and blacks are the worst.

==Tactics==

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

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

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

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

===Presenting outstanding homosexuals as contributors to society===



Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality|homosexual acts]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly decrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref> The British Government issued a formal, official apology for the way Alan Turing and other homosexuals were treated in the past.<ref>http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571</ref>

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Human Rights Watch]]

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

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

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-10T15:32:36Z

DavidAL:

== FAQ ==
''This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.''
::''See also : [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''

=== '''Why is registration necessary?''' ===

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

=== '''Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?''' ===

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

== WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS ==

=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''

"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias."
Not to forget those who have ever read a book and the ones that did not grow up in a cave.

I'll start. How are we supposed to do that when you haven't opened this page up to editing by users who aren't registered? Whoops!

:By registering, I'd say. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:39, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Doesn't that seem needlessly insular to you? While registering is simplistic, this also seems heavily uninviting to new visitors.

:Well ultimately, we're about building an useful educational resource. Anyone who wouldn't even bother registering probably isn't really interested in making substantive contributions. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:45, 8 December 2009 (EST)

I'd forgotten how full of himself Colbert is. Unbelievable. It's a good thing O'Reilly is a rerun tonight, or I don't think I could take this.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The one night Colbert might have some honest, conservative viewers, and he gives half his show over to this Marxist nutcase.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Haha. Colberts the man. People anyone who has a problem with colbert caz hes full of himself?! Thats an act... COlberts the man!!!! bill o reilly is a hypocrit nut job along with glenn beck and all of his fox news hypocritical bias friends. u might as well delete this because you don't agree with me, bias BS.
00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)~~

So, if you look at the entry on Global Warming here on Conservapedia it's blatantly obvious that there is extreme conservative bias. The first paragraph is nothing more than a subtle attack on the subject from a right wing point of view. A non bias entry would give a definition and only state the evidence for and against it and nothing else. An objective viewpoint sits in the middle and draws no conclusions. Anything that disagrees with the values of Conservapedia is immediately deemed "liberal." Here is the first paragraph from the Global Warming entry: ''The Global warming theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. Liberal scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.''

'''Conservapedia, it's great that your publishing the ultra-conservative point of view. Just don't try to claim that it is objective. It's not.''' [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I heard about this on the colbert report. I haven't had much time to explore the site, but being a senior in a public high school that was raised in an extremely conservative household, I think it's great that someone would take the time to put something like this together. Having just done a paper on organic foods, I also think it's good to see a mass media source that dares to show the conservative side of the argument and not a bunch of liberal bs about how great a starving, communist society would be.[[User:Desertdog|Desertdog]]

I'm a big Colbert and Jon Stewart fan. So obviously I was hesitant to come to this website after the interview on the Report. But I did, mostly because the guest told Colbert that this is a non-liberal-biased website. Now, to me (and my stupid little non-conservative brain), that meant that this website would try and steer clear of any bias because it claims to present the truth. I read some pages. And now I want to throw up. Thank you all for cementing my political and personal beliefs by creating a website that is the antithesis to it all. I know now why we'll never reach an understanding; your beliefs are based on false "facts" and ignorance, mine aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. God only knows that you'll probably start a war on me though. Oh well.

Wow - reading this site I can't tell if you people are insane, ignorant, malicious or a combination of the above. I don't consider myself a liberal by any means but good heavens you just HAVE to know that most of your articles are outright lies. None of the articles I've read are not at all suitable for research and some contain almost no truth. I also find your complete idiocy regarding the e.coli experiment unfathomable. It makes me physically ill to see people so uneducated, so superstitious and so ideologically poisoned affecting young minds. I understand now why this site is such a laughing stock. Most of your views are for comic reasons. I know the colbert nation is going to find this quite amusing. I hope you grow up one day and give up the lie your living on conservapedia. [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:49, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to watch the interview. Also, I'm actually Hojimachong. Hi Andy and TK and other assorted admins! I'm sincerely looking forward to acquiring a copy of this conservative Bible. Godspeed! -[[User:DavidCarlson|DavidCarlson]] 00:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'm a little new here, but isn't most of this website in violation of Commandment #6: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."?
:You're joking right? This entire site is opinion - I mean they do have an article here that claims dinosaurs may still be among us ... [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah I was kidding, actually I originally thought that Colbert's team had made this site up a some sort of joke.

In response to the comment about Colbert "wasting" half his show - he has guests from all over the political spectrum. I respect that a lot, despite disagreeing with several of his guests. And though it's masked in comedy, he does give enough speaking time to let the guest get a point across. It's a good way to complete complete one-sidedness. And on that note, just because this site can boast of not having a liberal bias, doesn't mean it is superior. Any bias at all provides only partial information; so don't think a conservative bias is something to brag about.

: Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth. The liberal Hillary Clinton, for example, will never say anything that might interfere with her political ambitions, regardless of what the truth is. And I don't mean to single her out; her approach is typical for liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Society evolves. You don't think the rules by which society lives should evolve to match that? Either way, only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Even the most specific statistics can be skewed, and unless you're giving only raw facts, and ALL raw facts, you're not giving the entire story. Is that really possible in the media? No. But deliberately giving only half the information available is essentially a lie of omission.
::Though I don't know your name since you didn't sign your comment, I like where you're going when you mentioned, "only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on," because that's exactly what you see and what you get from [[Wikipedia]]. It's what sets [[Conservapedia]] apart from the [[liberal bias]] and [[censorship]] practices used by the [[MSM]] and the [[liberal]] Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia understands and knows that, as Andy Schlafly said,
::{{cquote|Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. [[Conservative]] approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth.}}
::And that's the truth. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 04:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, Derek, it's a circular argument. Conservatism cannot lay claim to the truth any more than liberalism can. Despite what Andy would have you believe, there is nothing inherent in conservatism that makes it rely more heavily on objective truth. Both ideologies respond to truth and morality as they see it. Liberal extremists are just as convinced that their beliefs are based on the world as it is, as opposed by the conservative desire to blindly maintain the status quo. Only a truly egocentric person would believe either of these extreme viewpoints. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Insufficient, I think you missed the primary argument regarding the [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia]]. Two major differences include: (A) Conservapedia does not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. (B) Conservapedia allows original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Conservapedia does not restrict research for articles in that manner. Wikipedia, however, restricts research to that of mostly opinion articles written by journalists who are mostly or always liberal; and thus, censor facts because of their personal ideology. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

: You failed to grasp the point I was making. I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical of you to condemn Wikipedia for being biased, and then proudly proclaim your own bias. I've said twice now, all that means is that you're boasting of a lie of omission. Just because we agree that a liberal bias is a bad thing, doesn't mean you're better because you're biased to the conservative side instead. And if you agree with where I was going that it's wrong either way, then you agree that you are just as wrong with your conservative bias as many other "sources" are with their liberal bias. That's all I'm saying. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Also, BOTH sides have basis in truth. It's a matter of to what extent they ignore other truths that don't support their opinion that the factual basis they start out with builds up to falsehoods. And both sides are guilty of that. Not to mention, many things hotly debated in politics are either matters of perspective (i.e. moral issues, where there really is no clear-cut right and wrong, as everyone reaches their own set of values through their own life experiences), or matters of educated guessing (i.e. economic issues, where you can look at how it's worked historically and look at the various ways you think things will pan out, but you won't know exactly how an economic policy will affect the economy at any specific time or under any specific circumstances until it's been enacted). (Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Sorry about that. Having trouble articulating myself today.) Even for other issues, like environmental issues, it comes down to realizing there is some truth in both arguments. I guess my frustration is how dogmatic you are about conservatism, and I can't help but wonder how you can see that as a good thing. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::The problem with your logic is that you're assuming the only difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is strictly political. It's not. It's also the academic resources that are allowed in Conservapedia but not Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia allows opinions of journalists to be repeated there as though they are facts. Instead, Conservapedia requires authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' biased opinion. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

We're not HIDING a liberal view. This is CONSERVAPEDIA - if somebody wants to hear the liberal side of an issue, they're not going to come here. They go to wikipedia or metapedia or a site of vandals and troublemakers or some other liberal wiki. We exist to provide a conservative resource, and we fill that role very well. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Yes, but in admitting that, you are admitting to the aforementioned lie of omission, which is essentially the entire basis for the site. Not something to brag on. So if there's going to be an argument about how terrible a thing liberal bias is, it would by hypocritical not to acknowledge that you are doing the exact same thing with the other end of the political spectrum and thus are, by your own definitions, equally wrong.

Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this.
Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the selection of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A question, while yes Colbert reminded of this website, I do remember coming here a few years and it saddens me to see you are now "trustworthy." Doesn't seem like anywhere is truly "trusworthy" anymore :-( [[User:Stjimmy33|Stjimmy33]] 01:27, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It's probably worth noting that Colbert's "full of himself" act is an intentional parody of various right-wing political commentators (particularly Bill O'Reilly). I did find it funny when Andy discussed the number of viewers that this site receives. I'm sure that there are lots of people who prefer Conservapedia because it reinforces their worldview (woe to the poor youth that are brought up to think of it as unbiased alternative to Wikipedia), but I think that Andy seriously underestimates (or chooses to ignore) the large number of people who visit this site for personal amusement. Conservapedia was personally recommended to me as a "hilarious way to waste time" between meetings, and that is how all of my colleagues view it. Some of it's assertions are so extreme and hypocritical that many people believe it to be a satire in itself, comparable to Stephen's Colbert's act. Overall, the interview began relatively uninteresting, but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned. What Andy described (i.e., individuals monitoring each other to ensure authenticity) does exist; it's called Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism, but that is the price of having access to a wide breadth of knowledge with the benefit of self-monitoring. You can't have it both ways. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 01:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Insufficient, it's true that we block a lot more often than Wikipedia, and we don't give vandals 3 or 4 chances as Wikipedia does. However, for every vandal Wikipedia receives, there are a dozen legitimate users just waiting to undo the vandalism. Here, we have comparitively few editors trying to hold back a tide of vandalism, many of it quite shocking and disgusting, on this site, which is designed to be family-friendly. We ban users for vandalism, and we get a lot of it. But we do not ban because somebody disagrees with us, and I can prove it.
:A user, BMcP, has done tremendous work contributing to our astronomy articles, but repeatedly put old-Earth viewpoints in. He wasn't banned, though! Instead, he and I reached an amicable agreement where we would treat old-Earth and young-Earth views in seperate sections, and that is how it is done now. Conservapedia is full of examples of conflict resolution and fair treatment of users just like that. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::But, for a counter-example, look at the entire relativity talk pages. A handful of technically competent editors (including RSchlafly, who appears to be a solid contributor to the site, have been shouted down by one person: ASchlafly. The relativity page is not "the best of the public" but rather the personal (and scientifically incorrect!) opinion of ASchlafly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 10:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:''"..but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned."'' Insufficient, that remark of yours sounded exactly like the emails from CRU. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If that is the case Jacob, why does the article on evolution seem to neglect the vast abundance of supportive evidence in its favour? It certainly isn't hard to find someone that is able to make a valid argument for evolution, and yet the page not only makes no reference to it, but often falsely denies its existence. That page alone fully disproves Andy's claim that conservatism gives priority to truth. In the place of real facts, we get denial and an irrelevant picture of Hitler to ensure that everyone gets the idea (whether consciously or unconsciously) that evolution is evil. This is in spite of the fact that social darwinism (a misnomer) is actually not part of natural selection. I'm not saying that the effects of social darwinism should be brushed under the rug, but throwing an image of Hitler into an article about evolution is ridiculous and is fully intended to evoke emotion rather than thought. I could just as easily throw up an image of Osama Bin Laden in an article on the evils of religious faith, but that would be lazy. Once you have your facts about evolution, THEN you can worry about discussing it's social misunderstandings. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:First of all, that's not Andy's claim, that's what conservative MEANS. Second, there are no valid arguments for evolution. If you wish to deny that social darwinism came from regular darwinism, go do it on Wikipedia. Finally, throwing UBL on a page on relgiious extremism would be silly - there are many fundamentalist Islamic clerics who, despite whatever other shortcomings they may have, are not terrorists. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

That's exactly my point. There are even more evolutionists that, "despite whatever shortcomings they may have," aren't Hitler, thus making his picture silly. As for valid arguments for evolution, there are many...they're not hard to find either. Despite what this site would have you believe, there is fossil evidence to support it, it follows naturally from what we already know (beyond doubt) from animal domestication, and it's been shown experimentally in the lab with bacteria (some of the only lifeforms with short enough lifespans that we can observe it occur). Even if an individual chooses to ignore all of this evidence, which is fully within their right to do, it is still far more support than exists for any opposing argument. Yet it's all noticeably missing from the article on evolution...and I have a feeling that if I added it, it would quickly disappear. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:All your supposed arguments are wrong, just as any argument supporting a "flat earth" are wrong, because they draw a false conclusion. We don't put falsehoods into the encyclopedia. Hitler practiced the theory of evolution; any evolutionist who does not support Hitler may be morally admirable but lacks the courage of their convictions. Terrorism is not the practice of religious fundamentalism, it is the practice of a very specific kind of Islamic fundamentalism - there is a difference. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:50, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Your arguments just keep further proving the point I'm trying to make. Yes, there is a difference between religion and terrorism, just as there is a difference between evolution and eugenics. You don't get to hand pick your facts in order to support your conclusion while denying others. Hitler didn't practice "the theory of evolution," he practiced eugenics. It's possible to believe in evolution and be morally opposed to eugenics, just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and oppose terrorism. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that promotes eugenics, just as there is nothing inherent in religion that promotes terrorism. Yet in each case, the two occasionally coexist. Also, claiming that all my arguments are wrong without giving any clear reason doesn't actually refute the arguments. I could just as easily claim that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because all of the evidence in support of it draws a "false conclusion" (this argument can be made for ANY theory). However, I can deny it until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the evidence does exist, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system is in plenty of encyclopedias, along with evolution. Scientific theories are never "proven." They are only supported or refuted. In the case of evolution, there is strong support--far more than for any alternative explanations. If support for evolution draws a false conclusion, it is impossible to argue that support for creationism is any different. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 03:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::No, Insufficient, it is your argument that proves our point. You're basically stating that evolution is a fact based on "support". What kind of "support"? Scientific consensus? A lot of people agreeing that it's true? Where's the proof? All I've been seeing is Mr. Scientist ''saying'' that animal-A evolved into animal-B - he's ''saying'' it is true; he's not ''proving'' it's true. As to your argument that it was settled in the lab with bacteria or the animal farm with domestication, well, that involves the interference of man in the results. Sorry to break your bubble, but your explanations are just insufficient. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, actually I didn't claim that evolution was a "fact," and saying so is blatantly misrepresenting my argument. I'm saying that it is a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it...moreso than is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted by the scientific community. That is the definition of a good scientific theory. Any theory that doesn't have any evidence to support it isn't worth anyone's time. I don't actually care whether you or anyone else believes in evolution, but when you (or anyone) outright lies about facts, I'm going to call you on it. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is evidence to support it, and by discrediting evolution for "lack of evidence," you are actually doing even greater harm to the theory of creationism, which has significantly less (arguably none, but I will humour you and pretend there is some). That is why there is no scientific debate about the existence of evolution. Is it a fact? Like any scientific theory, we can never say yes, but it is likely beyond reasonable doubt. As for the interference of humans, that doesn't actually matter as much as you like to believe. Whether humans interfered or not, animal domestication has proven that the heritability of traits can lead to huge changes in animal appearance and behaviour, so that after many generations, it becomes generally unrecognizable. How does this shaping occur? By utilizing natural processes: to breed an animal in favour of a particular trait, you select animals that have that trait and allow them to spread their genes. That isn't evolution; that's genetics, and we already know that it occurs from something as basic as family resemblance (for the record, this is what inspired Hitler, not evolution). The theory of natural selection merely takes what we already know about genetics and takes it to the next logical step. Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to a domesticated animal also apply in nature? If an animal has some advantage that allows it to spread its genes more than others, why wouldn't it follow the same laws? If they are in fact God's laws, you're accusing Him of inconsistency without any clear justification. And with regard to Andy's argument about "evolution syndrome," that's just called a lazy argument. I could just as easily claim the existence of a "creationist syndrome," with the exact same symptoms, but I should hope that if I was that desperate for an argument, someone would call me on it. If my explanations are insufficient (using a self-disparaging username for a pun isn't nearly as clever as you might think...), then I recommend making some of your own. Perhaps you should educate me on what a good argument with solid, logical conclusions would look like. Because so far it has all been denial, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 13:32, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::What rubbish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 What is "wrong" about this? What doesn't make sense of the theory of evolution? Where are you saying "that's impossible"? Your, or my, inability to comprehend a theory doesn't make it lies. 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST) {{unsigned|Rutger}}
::::You don't have proof that Evolution is fact. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:::::No I don't as unlike many conservapedia regulars I don't claim to be an expert on every subject rather I defer to people who are and who do have evidence which you can continue to deny. I noticed you failed to answer to the questions though (you want to wait for Andy's script so you don't get anything wrong?) and now that Andy is trying to pretend this isn't a dictatorship those who dare question your fragile world view aren't being immediatly banned. How inconvienient for you. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? [[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected. For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.' However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down. Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form. For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence -- "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement. And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable. Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

: We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible. Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges. Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as [[evolution syndrome]] that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored. Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

public school education: i am a loyal fan of Colbert and would like to say a couple of things. 1) i am half republican and have democrat (my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat and i like different ideas from both groups.)2)i have gone to a private school my entire life and i have never gone to the office once. i have never been punished and i have received straight A's since i was in fifth grade. therefore by you guys saying that every Colbert nation member has been public school educated and are all rebellious is not only overly general but obviously not true. you undermine any true statement that you make by obviously making up information.

: Private school students are less than 10% of the population, so you're the exception rather than the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::have you actually taken a scientific survey or are you making up information that would suit your argument. How sad because no doubt some of the things that you say are true but by being intellectually dishonest you blur any positive potential education of your viewers. if however, your statistic is correct (please share with me the citation) that doesn't mean that only 10% of the Colbert Report viewers are privately educated.

::The article on [[evolution]] is a keeper! Don't change a bit: I love reading sentences like ''19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior'' (according to the source, both were partly right, partly wrong) [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:02, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::You'll like our entry on [[evolution syndrome]] even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If evolution is undeniable fact, how come we never evolved a third set of teeth? Since you cannot observe evolution, and you can observe many things that would be different were evolution true, it seems to me the sensible starting point is to assume that evolution didn't happen, and wait to be proven wrong. As that has not happened yet, I'll continue to believe evolution is just an justification for social Darwinism and policies like the Nazis enacted.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 18:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A third set of teeth? I'm not sure who taught you the theory of evolution, but just know that you are WAY off the mark. I'm starting to think that disbelief in evolution comes from a complete misunderstanding of anything about it. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:18, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Before you discount something, actually know what you are talking about. However, if people on here knew what they were talking about, most of this website, if not all of it, would not exist. As for your example, if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we don't have a third set of teeth because we don't need one. If it benefitted people, then if and when the mutation took place in our genes, that person would thrive and have more offspring than other people, promoting this gene in future generations. I can see why evolution might confuse you if you think that it "just happens."

:But it would benefit people; that's unambiguous. Teeth go rotten, get cavities, fall out. Only recently has it become commonplace for people to keep their teeth into middle age and beyond. You need teeth to eat, see how long a chimpanzee lasts in the wild with no teeth, so I would think someone who can regrow teeth as an adult would be at a huge advantage relative to those who couldn't. Plus a full set of teeth is more attractive to the opposite sex than not, no? My argument is precisely that it does benefit us, and so the fact that it hasn't caught on is proof that evolution doesn't exist. Your problem is your mind is closed to ideas that you don't already have. I concur with Andy that you might find the article on [[evolution syndrome]] useful.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 22:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Only recently has it become commonplace for people to '''live''' into middle age and beyond.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:All the more reason why a third set of teeth would benefit humans. Can anyone here over the age of 25 really claim that getting fresh teeth would not be nice?--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 00:11, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Captain2obvious- It's only common place for liberals who want to enact global warming legislation. Liberals want everyone to live in huts of straw and forfeit the modern ages which is bad bad bad for the Earth.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's what's called a strawman. If your arguement has no merit please continue to use them and think you're superiour. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Two things: First a question. HUH?; Secondly, I am not a "liberal", as you are so implying.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Why do people who state "I am not a liberal" never state what they actually call themselves? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The simplest reason would be that until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Oopsy, I read your reply wrong (middle ages / middle age). I never said you were liberal, just misinterpreted your remark.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Perfectly understandable Jpatt, its not the first misunderstanding that's occurred on the Internet.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative" Forgive me for my conflicted feelings between seriously asking exactly what that means and being simply baffled by the silliness of such a statement. Split the difference: what does that mean and how in the world could a brief visit to a single website change what you consider yourself to be? Also, you still haven't stated exactly what you consider yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Let me clarify a bit then. Visiting the site has not in not the slightest changed the way I think about myself. I still consider myself Conservative. However in my "brief" time visiting this website, and after reading several of the articles and discussions, has made me question whether other people would classify me as such.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

This is the worst.

==Registration==
You don't make it easy for a place that wants people to edit, do you? I tried after the show last night, couldn't figure it out, but managed to stumble upon one of your (stupider, and rather well hidden) policies on user names. I was able to register this morning, but if it hadn't worked, you probably would have lost a contributor forever. [[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Welcome. I don't believe stupider is an actual word.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the [http://conservapedia.com/Wiki/conservapedia Welcome Banner], as discussed on the [[New Welcome Banner proposal]] page. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Wow. Could you guys stop whining about registration already? I'd rather not be associated with people who can't pass the rigors of user-name creation. --[[User:Montag|Montag]] 21:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::The argument I'm making from the New Welcome Banner has more to do with creating a more welcoming entrance to the site, but also improving ease of navigation to pages that are valuable to newcomers. At one point or another every one of us was a wiki-newbie. While the easiest way to learn is through trial and error, I see no harm in facilitating the learning process by allowing new-comers to be more cognizant of the encyclopedia's rules, guidelines, how-to's, and other salient information that more advanced members already know about. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 21:59, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Slavery

2009-12-10T15:31:57Z

DavidAL: /* Bible approves? */

'''Slavery''' is a legal economic system with involuntary servitude, such that the people held in bondage must work for their owner, and can be bought and sold. Legally the slave has limited rights; for example, it was a crime in the South to kill or maim a slave except in self-defense. Normally slavery was a lifetime condition; children born to slave mothers automatically became slaves of the owner. People originally became slaves when captured in warfare.

In America the slaves were African blacks; Indians starved themselves to death rather than live as slaves. From 1500 to 1820, hundreds of thousands of Europeans were captured in war by Muslims and made slaves.

The last forms of legal slavery were outlawed in 1970 in the Arabian countries, but hidden slavery still exists today in remote parts of Africa such as the [[Sudan]] where Arabs own black slaves.

Slavery was found in the history of most civilizations. Slavery flourishes where there is a high demand for labor and not enough workers. When the workers are plentiful, slavery dies out because it is unprofitable. That is, it becomes cheaper to free a slave and hire low cost paid labor than to buy and maintain slaves. Typically, when it had almost died out, it was made illegal by the government, as in Brazil.

The most famous instance of slavery was in the American South until it was forcibly ended during the [[American Civil War]] (1861-65)--the only major war in world history fought over slavery.
==Metaphor==
The term "slavery" is often used metaphorically for sex workers who are controlled by pimps.

In political writings, especially in [[Republicanism]], slavery is a highly negative term that means political control by an outside force.

==Economics==
The two main forms of slavery are house servants (in which slaves are luxury items owned by the rich), and field work, in which slaves are used as a cheap labor force. If free labor is cheaper than expensive slaves, slavery will disappear. If there is a shortage of laborers (and an abundance of work to do), slavery becomes economically possible. It is especially profitable in new lands with few people and rich soils or mines that require imported labor.

Slavery tended to die out in cities and flourished only in rural areas. In the cities rich families owned many slaves as a luxury good guaranteeing good servants. Otherwise, slaves in cities were more expensive to maintain than free labor, which could be hired and fired as needed. Slave labor was profitable for farms, mines, and construction jobs; it was not profitable for factories.

==Ancient history==
Most ancient civilizations, including Greece and Rome, had slavery on a large scale.

In [[Egypt]] Hebrews were slaves. The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states. In [[Ancient Greece|ancient Athens]] about 30% of the population consisted of slaves.<ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741501460_4/Ancient_Greece.html Ancient Greece]</ref>

Often prisoners of wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. Historians debate how extensive slavery was in the Roman Empire--estimates go as high as 25% of the population.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml BBC - History - Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome]</ref> [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves.

Slavery died out in the Roman Empire because the population was ample to work the land. Most of the slaves became serfs, who were attahed to certain lands but who had more legal rights and who could not be bought and sold or moved off their specific land.

According to the [[Domesday Book]] census in 1086 AD, 10% of England's population was enslaved.<ref>[http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs2970.htm Domesday Book Slave]</ref>

==Medieval Europe==
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Painting of a slave market in late medieval Eastern Europe.]]

Slavery in [[Poland]] was forbidden in the 15th century; in [[Lithuania]], slavery was formally abolished in 1588; they were replaced by the second enserfment.

Slavery was a major institution in [[Russia]], and families facing starvation often sold themselves into slavery. Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679. In 1723, when the [[Peter the Great]] converted the remaining household slaves into house serfs. <ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24160 Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History]</ref> Serfdom was abolished in 1863 by Tsar [[Alexander II]]; however, most serfs had to pay the government for giving them land.

==Present-day slavery==
Slavery was also known among [[Arabs]] into the 20th century. As recently as the 1950s, [[Saudi Arabia]] had an estimated 450,000 slaves, 20% of the population.<ref>[http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm Slavery in Islam]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr07/page18.html £400 for a Slave]</ref> It is estimated that as many as 200,000 people had been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War.<ref>[http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/in_depth/sudan-genocide.html War and Genocide in Sudan]</ref><ref>[http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/livewire/archived/the_lost_children_of_sudan/ The Lost Children of Sudan]</ref> In [[Mauritania]] it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labor.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1458_abolition/page4.shtml The Abolition season on BBC World Service]</ref> Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in 2007.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6938032.stm Mauritanian MPs pass slavery law]</ref> In [[Niger]], slavery is also a current phenomenon; a Nigerien study has found that more than 800,000 people, or almost 8% of the population, are slaves.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=813618&page=1 The Shackles of Slavery in Niger]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4250709.stm Born to be a slave in Niger]</ref>

==1492-1865==
In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a right of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The Spanish had already been enslaving South American natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. 12 million of African slaves were brought by the Europeans to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The demand for sugar was exploding throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white [[plantation]] owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave; most died in less than 10 years, and had to be replaced.
===Africa===
Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies.
===Slave trade===
The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the [[Trans-Atlantic slave trade]]) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

* After kidnapping potential slaves, merchants forced them to walk in slave caravans to the European coastal forts, sometimes as far as 1,000 miles. Shackled and underfed, only half the people survived these death marches. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html]

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

===White slaves===
Between 1530 and 1780, Europeans including Britons and even some Americans were frequently taken captive and enslaved by privateers from the [[Barbary States]]. Estimates of so-called "white slavery" vary from as little as 50,000 to in the millions <ref>http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</ref>. Generally Europeans enslaved by the [[corsairs]] were usually poorer sea merchants and city dwellers whose families were unable to pay the ransom necessary to free them. Often the [[Pasha]] would purchase the female captives into his harem. Many were forced to "go turk" or convert to "mohammadism" in order to stay with their children who were raised as Muslims. Occasionally slaves would convert in order to escape harsher labors such as tending the oars in the corsairs <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_print.html</ref>.

For a long time, until the early 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the [[Ottoman Empire]] and the Middle East. Kefe was one of the best known and significant trading ports and slave markets. In a process called "harvesting of the steppe" Crimean Tatars enslaved many Slavic peasants.
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolph's painting ''The Slave Market'']]
===Islam===
In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early [[Islamic]] states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750-1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275-1591), about a third of the population were slaves. In [[Sierra Leone]] in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of slaves. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the [[Igbo]] and other peoples of the lower Niger, the [[Kingdom of Kongo|Kongo]], and the Kasanje kingdom and Choke of [[Angola]]. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of slaves. The population of the [[Kanem]] was about a third-slave. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1396–1893). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern [[Nigeria]] and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of [[Arab]]-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of [[Madagascar]] was enslaved.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157 Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History]</ref>

The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2 million slaves in [[Ethiopia]] in the early 1930s, out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million.<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/cbss/Miers.pdf Twentieth Century Solutions of the Abolition of Slavery]</ref> Ethiopia officially abolished slavery and serfdom after regaining its independence in 1942. On August 26, 1942 [[Haile Selassie]] issued a proclamation outlawing slavery.<ref>[http://www.globalmarch.org/resourcecentre/world/ethiopia.pdf Ethiopia]; [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2691/COS2.html Chronology of slavery]</ref>
===India===
India in 1841 had an estimated 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 slaves in India.<ref>According to Sir Henry Bartle Frere (who sat on the Viceroy's Council).</ref> In Malabar, about 15% of the population were slaves. Slavery was abolished in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843. Provisions of the Indian Penal Code of 1861 effectively abolished slavery in India by making the enslavement of human beings a criminal offense.<ref>[http://www.wluml.org/english/pubs/pdf/occpaper/OCP-07.pdf Islamic Law and the Colonial Encounter in British India]</ref>
===Korea===
Indigenous slaves existed in [[Korea]]. During the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) about 30% to 40% of the Korean population consisted of slaves. Slavery was hereditary, as well as a form of legal punishment. There was a slave class with both government and privately owned slaves, and the government occasionally gave slaves to citizens of higher rank. Privately owned slaves could be inherited as personal property. During poor harvests and famine, many peasants would voluntarily become slaves in order to survive. In the case of private slaves they could buy their freedom.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-693609/history-of-Korea Korea, history pre-1945:slavery -- Encyclopaedia Britannica]</ref><ref>[http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~geobl/main/lectures/l17.html The Choson Era: Late Traditional Korea]</ref><ref>[http://ideas.repec.org/p/snu/ioerwp/no26.html Korean Nobi]</ref> Slavery was officially abolished with the Gabo Reform of 1894.

==Famous Slaves==
* [[St. Felecity]]
* [[St. Patrick]]
* [[Pope Pius I]]
* [[Pope Callixtus I]]
* [[Pope Clement I]]
* [[Spartacus]]
* [[Frederick Douglass]]
* [[Harriet Tubman]]
* [[Dred Scott]]
* [[Booker T. Washington]]
* [[Attilla the Hun]]
==Bible approves?==
{{main|Slavery in the Bible}}

Slavery was an well-established institution throughout the Ancient Near East, and the
[[Old Testament]] sanctions its form of regulated slavery, though that is seen as being counter cultural in its degree of amelioration, including as compared to that of ancient slave states as Greece and Rome, and the typical practice of slavery in American history.<ref>[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html ''Does God condone slavery in the Bible?'']</ref><ref>[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html ''The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world'']</ref> The New Testament does not condemn the institution itself, but makes requirements upon both masters and slaves in further improving treatment in the inherited economic institution.

Slave owners in the antebellum South cited both Old Testament and New Testament texts, such as Ephesians 6:5, “slaves, obey your masters”, in arguments for the Christian endorsement of slavery. Another Bible verse states that thieves should be sold into slavery.<ref>Exodus 22:3 "He should make a full restitution; and if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.</ref> Under the [[Mosaic Law]], Hebrew slaves could be kept for six years, and offered release in the seventh for nothing. They were to be treated as hired servants, and generous provisions given to them at termination, though they could choose to be lifetime servants. However, daughters who were sold to be betrothed to the owner or his son, were not set free in their seventh year but were to be allowed to be redeemed if that marriage had not taken place done. If marriage occurred, they were to be set free if the husband was negligent in his basic marital obligations.(Exodus 21:1-11; cf. Dt. 15:12-18)

The system of slavery commonly diminished a person to the point where they would be regarded as a thing or an object to be owned. The Christian [[abolitionists]] disagreed with this valuation, and saw the New Testament in particular, and its ethos of love for neighbor as oneself, as supporting the abolition of slavery, and advanced an interpretation of the Bible which presented human value in terms of God's parental love for all people as His children (see [[human rights]]).<ref>[http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html Bourne, George, 1780-1845, ''A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument; By a Citizen of Virginia'']</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=3n4OGC-OoqIC&dq=God+Against+Slavery+George+B.+Cheever,&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=YCiuzJHs7T&sig=GyTdW1UZEO6eqV6XxdKv2v_SJF8&hl=en&ei=oaWRSvHyJpPDlAeXqdCjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false George B. Cheever, ''God Against Slavery'' (1875)]</ref>

While requiring Christian obedience <ref>''Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible'', Eph. 6:7; cf. Rm. 13:1</ref> of slaves toward their masters, the New Testament also requires masters to exercise their duties in the fear of God, and prohibits threatening, abuse or unequal pay for slaves. ((Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1) (1Cor. 7:21) It also commands slaves to obtain freedom if possible, and contains the record of the [[apostle Paul]] requiring that the escaped slave Onesimus be received back by his master Philemon, no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved", even as Paul himself (Philemon 1:16,17)

"Basically, slavery is pretty awesome." -God

===Curse of Ham===
Some Southern white theologians before the Civil War asserted that the slavery of blacks was the result the curse of Ham. However, there is no evidence that the curse had to do with skin color, and the descendants of [[Canaan]] most likely were not black, and it is generally concluded that they did not settle in [[Africa]].<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=70</ref><ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html</ref><ref>Full Life Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing Company (September 1992)</ref><ref>A Condensed Anti-slavery Bible Argument By George Bourne </ref>

==Abolition of American Slavery==
The first black slaves were brought to [[Jamestown]] Colony early on. Originally, slavery was legal in every British American colony. However, after the [[American Revolution]], the [[Massachusetts Supreme Court]] ruled that, since the new [[Constitution of Massachusetts|constitution]] read, "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties", it made slavery illegal. By 1804, slavery had been abolished in every northern state.<ref>However, in many states, current slaves remained in servitude for the rest of their lives.</ref>

[[The South]] after 1800 became more militant in defense of slavery. [[John C. Calhoun]] and other southerners called it the South's "peculiar institution" and proclaimed it a good idea. Some proponents suggested it would also be a good idea for white workers who were living under worse conditions in Northern cities.<ref> Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, ''Slavery in White and Black: Class and Race in the Southern Slaveholders'' (2008)</ref> It flourished in the Southern states until [[Abraham Lincoln]] and his Union Army abolished it during the [[American Civil War]]. This was a case of racial slavery--the slaves were black, the owners were white.<ref> A few free blacks owned slaves--usually relatives they had purchased from whites. Indian tribes also had slaves, both Indian and black.</ref>

==British Empire==
Emancipation of slaves in the British Caribbean became a major cause by the 1800s, when abolitionists such as [[William Wilberforce]] and [[John Wesley]] began speaking out against the evils of the system.<ref>[http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm William Wilberforce (1759-1833)]</ref> Wilberforce was supported in his efforts by [[John Newton]], a slave trader who became a Christian and then opposed the slave trade. In 1807 the [[House of Commons]] passed the Slave Trade Abolition Bill by a 283-16 vote. It made the international slave trade a crime of piracy and send the Royal Navy to enforce it.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/03/20/abolition_navy_feature.shtml Sailing against slavery. By Jo Loosemore] BBC</ref> In 1808 the U.S. also outlawed the international trade. However, some slave traders evaded the prohibition--many were caught and hung, with the freed captives sent to [[Sierra Leone]]. Slavery remained legal inside the [[British Empire]] (including Canada) until 1833 when the government bought all the slaves from the owners<ref> Mostof the owners lived in great mansions in London, and appreciated the money.</ref> and freed them.<ref>The ex-slaves went through an apprenticeship process before gaining freedom. Andrea Curry ''Timeline: The Abolition of the Slave Trade'', British Heritage Magazine (May 2007)</ref> <ref>[http://slavetrade.parliament.uk/slavetrade/history/parliamentabolishestheslavetrade/draftdocument.html History: Parliament Abolishes the Slave Trade] Parliamentary House of Lords</ref>

In the United States, the northern states abolished slavery by 1803--most of the slaves there were house servants. In the South, however, cotton made slavery very profitable and 11 states seceded in 1861 to protect their interest. [[Abraham Lincoln]] achieved the end of slavery in 1863-65, using the Army and the [[13th Amendment]]. In Cuba and Brazil, slavery was unprofitable and finally collapsed in the 1880s as few people wanted to buy slaves.
===Abolitionists===
*[[Harriet Tubman]], Underground Railroad. (1820 - 1913) <ref>http://www.heritageny.gov/Railroad/urny.cfm</ref> Well-known associate of the Underground Railroad. Acted as a spy and led raids to assist others in gaining their freedom.
*[[Frederick Douglass]], orator, writer and publisher. (1817 - 1875) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/447/000048303/</ref> Respected leader of the abolitionist movement, consummate freedom seeker, orator and publisher.
*[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], unitarian minister and freethinker. (1803-1882) <ref>http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/ralphwaldoemerson.html </ref> Expressed visceral public disapproval of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Exhorted people to "do the duty of the hour", and support abolition.
*[[William Lloyd Garrison]], anti-slavery editor of the Liberator (1805 - 1879); the single most imfluential abolitionist <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/966/000049819/</ref> Founded the Liberator with partner Isaac Knapp in 1831.
*[[Elizur Wright]], abolitionist, freethinker. (1804-1885) <ref> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0852788.html</ref> Became involved in the abolitionist movement while attending Yale university. Eventually worked as a secretary with the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833 and assumed the editorship of the Massachusetts Abolitionist in 1839.
*[[John Brown]] (1800-1859), tried to lead a slave rebellion in 1859; the slaves did not join him, but white Southerners became convinced there were many more John Browns to come if they stayed in the Union
*[[John Stuart Mill]], philosopher, essayist. (1806 - 1879) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/147/000030057/</ref> Wrote numerous essays on abolition during the American Civil War. Asserted the war was being fought to abolish slavery, an unpopular political opinion at the time.

==Further reading==
for a much more detailed guide see [[Bibliography of Slavery]]

===Reference===
* Finkelman, Paul, and Joseph C. Miller, eds. ''Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery'' (1999), very good reference
* Morgan, Kenneth. ''Slavery and the British Empire: From Africa to America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-British-Empire-Africa-America/dp/0192892916/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241544745&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Parish, Peter J. '' Slavery: History and Historians'' (1989) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/slavery-history-and-historians-by-peter-j-parish.jsp online edition]
* Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. ''The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery'' (2 vol. 1997), very good reference
===Rome===
* Bradley, Keith. ''Slavery and Society at Rome'' (1994) [http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Society-Themes-Ancient-History/dp/0521378877/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254513594&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Westermann, William L. ''The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity'' 91955) 182pp [http://www.questia.com/read/3797806?title=The%20Slave%20Systems%20of%20Greek%20and%20Roman%20Antiquity online edition]

===United States===
* Fogel, Robert. ''Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery'' (1989) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/without-consent-or-contract-the-rise-and-fall-of-american-slavery-by-robert-william-fogel.jsp online edition]
* Genovese, Eugene. ''Roll Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made'' (1974), the most important book, written as Genovese was moving from Marxism to conservatism
* Miller, Randall M., and John David Smith, eds. ''Dictionary of Afro-American Slavery'' (1988), exellent reference
* Phillips, Ulrich B. ''American Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control of Negro Labor as Determined by the Plantation Regime'' (1918), the best older history; leftists complain it does not share their biases. [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11490 free edition online]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:The South]]
[[Category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:African History]]

==see also==
* [[Abolitionism]]
* [[American Civil War]]

Astronaut

2009-12-10T15:30:13Z

DavidAL:

An '''astronaut''' is a person who is trained by [[NASA]] to explore [[outer space]], planetary moons, etc. in a space-traveling device.

==Alternative Forms==

Astronaut is the American name for a space traveler. In [[Russia]], they are known as [[Cosmonaut|Cosmonauts]] and [[Taikonaut|Taikonauts]] in [[China]].
{{stub2}}

Andrew Schlafly is most likely an astronaut in disguise.

[[Category:Space Exploration]]