Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Hell

2007-05-14T13:15:50Z

DavidB:

[[Image:Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hell.jpg|right|300px|thumb|''Hell'', painted by [[Hieronymus Bosch]], part of ''[[The Garden of Earthly Delights]]''.]]
In the English translation of the [[Bible]]'s Old Testament, the word '''hell''' normally corresponds to the [[Hebrew]] ''sheol'', which was simply the place of the dead. But in the [[Greek]] [[New Testament]] the word used is either ''Gehenna'' (the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept eternally burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench) or ''Hades'', the [[Greek]]s' dark, gloomy underworld. The modern English word appears to derive most directly from "Holle" or "Hela" or "Hel", goddess of the dead in Germanic/Norse mythology. When the Anglo-Saxons converted to [[Christianity]], the existing word in the language was reused in this new context and applied to the meanings given above.

To Christians, hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the [[sins]] they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth. According to Christianity, the only way to avoid hell is to know, love, and serve [[God]] and rely on His forgiveness. In fact, most religions hold the belief that all those who belong to the other religions are destined for hell. Logically, this means that everyone is going to hell.

The Christian and Muslim religious traditions often emphasize the ''Gehenna'' aspect: Hell is extremely hot and filled with fire and [[brimstone]]. Opinion varies on the question of whether, while hell itself is eternal, experience of it purges away the sins of sufferers to the point of eventual redemption. See [[purgatory]]. A minority of Christians do not believe in an eternal hell, believing instead that the souls of the wicked are annihilated. This view is referred to as Annihilationism.

[[Category:Religion]]

Octopus

2007-05-14T13:12:14Z

DavidB:

The '''Octopus''' is one of a number of kinds of predatory marine [[cephalopod]] [[mollusc]]s, found in the warmer seas of the world.

Generally less actively swimming than their fellow cephalopods [[squid]] and [[cuttlefish]], octopuses have eight suckered [[tentacle]]s used for attachment to rocks and to prey. To move, it may pull itself over the sea bed with its tentacles, but when in a hurry, it shoots a jet of water out of its body, thrusting it through the water.

Octopuses use [[chromatophore]]s to perfectly camouflage themselves against their background. When threatened, it can eject a cloud of ink to mask its escape.

Octopuses are highly intelligent, and are capable of opening jars and solving simple puzzles. They can compress their bodies to fit through minute apertures.

Octopuses, having engulfed their prey in their arms, inject it with venom, and some, such as the blue-ringed octopus of Australia are highly poisonous and are capable of killing a man with their bite.

The existence of giant arboreal octopuses, on a scale similar to the [[giant squid]], has been suspected for many years, but no verified specimens have yet been captured.

Octopuses are a popular seafood especially in [[Mediterranean]] cuisine, though must be cooked carefully to avoid their flesh becoming rubbery.

[[Category:Molluscs]]
[[Category:Seafood]]

Nationalism

2007-05-14T13:09:17Z

DavidB:

Nationalism is a feeling of unity among a group of people born out of the [[French Revolution]] and [[Age of Enlightenment]] idea of worship of the ''[[Patrie]]'', or one's national origins and a sense of pride in their country.

Lack of nationalism, or a desire for new nations, was a cause for the split of countries such as [[Yugoslavia]] and [[Austria-Hungary]]. It can be considered positive, as a form of [[patriotism]], but it can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the [[nation]] (which is often ethnically defined) and violence. Not permitting British spellings on Conservapedia is an example of extreme nationalism, given that the site is available around the world. Other examples of this negative nationalism are the [[Nazi Party]] in [[Germany]], the ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the current isolationist policies of [[North Korea]]. {{Fact}}
[[category:politics]]

Nationalism

2007-05-14T13:09:00Z

DavidB:

Nationalism is a feeling of unity among a group of people born out of the [[French Revolution]] and [[Age of Enlightenment]] idea of worship of the ''[[Patrie]]'', or one's national origins and a sense of pride in their country.

Lack of nationalism, or a desire for new nations, was a cause for the split of countries such as [[Yugoslavia]] and [[Austria-Hungary]]. It can be considered positive, as a form of [[patriotism]], but it can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the [[nation]] (which is often ethnically defined) and violence. Not permitting English spellings on Conservapedia is an example of extreme nationalism, given that the site is available around the world. Other examples of this negative nationalism are the [[Nazi Party]] in [[Germany]], the ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the current isolationist policies of [[North Korea]]. {{Fact}}
[[category:politics]]

Gun control

2007-05-14T12:57:13Z

DavidB: /* Objections to gun control */

Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].

A common use of firearms is to defend one's life, though accidental death of those who are attacking has occurred. Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

'''Gun control''' is the regulation by governments of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s. Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. In fact, whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>. Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK, <ref>http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html</ref> and the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher.

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[cour]ts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html</ref>

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the concentration of firearms ownership in the hands of the state, and a general reduction in the level of gun crime. This is why gun control is promoted by various statist philosophies such as [[Communism]], [[Socialism]], and [[Fascism]] as well as many democratic nations such as the UK, France, Germany and Australia.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on use of guns. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

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

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

==Objections to gun control==
Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>. Of course, guns are freely available in nearby Virginia.

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

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>

Gun control

2007-05-14T12:56:33Z

DavidB: /* Overview */

Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].

A common use of firearms is to defend one's life, though accidental death of those who are attacking has occurred. Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

'''Gun control''' is the regulation by governments of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s. Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. In fact, whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>. Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK, <ref>http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html</ref> and the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher.

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[cour]ts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html</ref>

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the concentration of firearms ownership in the hands of the state, and a general reduction in the level of gun crime. This is why gun control is promoted by various statist philosophies such as [[Communism]], [[Socialism]], and [[Fascism]] as well as many democratic nations such as the UK, France, Germany and Australia.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on use of guns. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

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

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

==Objections to gun control==
Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>.

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

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>

Slavery

2007-05-14T12:54:18Z

DavidB:

'''Slavery''' was a peculiar institution found in all [[civilization]]s which diminished a person's value to the point where they would be regarded as a "thing" to be owned.
The value of a slave was typically about the same as that of a [[race horse]]. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

The slavery system reduces a person to the status of an animal who can be owned by another person. Some say it is a contradiction of our God-given human rights. Yet the Bible 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> In general, slaves can be kept for six years. <ref>Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."</ref> Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution.

== Ancient History ==
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Painting of a slave market in early medieval Eastern Europe.]]
Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). 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.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves; however, later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]] into the twentieth century.

==Recent History==

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 [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great 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.

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. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

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.

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.

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>.

==End of European and American Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. The slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

The British ban on the slave trade enforced by the British navy did undermine the slave trade globally. This led to the the United States banning the slave trade in the early 1800s. However, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the U.S. government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe's painting ''The Slave Market'']]
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. Some English translations use the term 'slave' while others use 'servant,' but the meanings are equivalent. For example:

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. Though physical violence to slaves is permitted, murder is not.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Shellfish

2007-05-14T12:42:42Z

DavidB:

Shellfish is a culinary term for aquatic invertebrates used as food: molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Both saltwater and freshwater invertebrates are considered shellfish. Many gentile societies have eaten shellfish as a staple diet for thousands of years.

== Biblical Views on Shellfish ==

Shellfish is referred to only twice in the Bible; it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and there are no references in the New Testament or in the letters of Paul. Jews, and some Christians, do not eat shellfish because of the Old Testament prohibition against it. <ref>http://www.kyrieology.com/drupal/wwje/christiansgokosher</ref><ref>http://www.abcog.org/food.htm</ref>; shellfish are referred to using the same term, usually translated as "abomination", which is applied to homosexuality. Many Christians eat shellfish but condemn homosexuality - this is an example of selectively obeying God's law when it is convenient.

All references in Amplified Version

=== Old Testament ===

* Leviticus 11:9-12 - 9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, these you may eat; 10 But all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all the creeping things in the waters, and of all the living creatures which are in the waters, they are [to be considered] an abomination and abhorrence to you. 11 They shall continue to be an abomination to you; you shall not eat of their flesh, but you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that has not fins or scales shall be abhorrent and detestable to you.

* Deuteronomy 14:9-10 - 9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales you may eat, 10 And whatever has not fins and scales you may not eat; it is unclean for you.

==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:non-Kosher foods]][[Category:Abominations]]

Talk:Homosexuality/Archive1

2007-04-21T06:45:22Z

DavidB: /* AIDS statistic */

== Not a family friendly article ==
I'm as against homosexuality as the next conservative, but really, a lot of this article is disgusting, let alone family friendly, particularly all the language about @n@l $ex. Do we want our children to read this?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Why do you assume that conservatives must be against homosexuality? I happen to be a non-hetero Republican.--[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::Frankly, I don't think [[user:Conservateur]] is very family-friendly with his bigoted attitude. See, I'm as accepting of homosexuality as the next reasonable man...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible Quote==
Funny thing about the passage in Corinthians, the passage after it says you should have disobedient children ''stoned to death''. If God's word is law, what happened to this eh? [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==the third commandment==
"Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "Anal Sex and Disease" is the name of the next Disney movie.

==Misquoting the Bible==
The verse 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind", not what the article says:
''"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality"''. If you quote the Bible, quote it correctly.

It is helpful to keep in mind that different versions of the Bible produce different wording of verses. The above excerpt doesn't prove blatant misquoting on any persons part, simply that a different version had been consulted.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

There are not different versions of the bible, only different translations. The translation chosen for this article seems to have chosen a very narrow interpretation of the original text. There was no word which consistently translated to "homosexuality" in ancient Greek. -zerba

:The King James Bible - the true an right Bible states as follows:
::''Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.'' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Surely Conservapedia must refer to an American English translation, not a British English translation? Also, many newer translations are translated from older original texts that were unknown at the time of the King James, leading to more accurate interpretations of the original author's meaning. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

That is a good point. Which translation would you suggest?
:"My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words." (Psalm 119:139)
[[User:JC|JC]] 10:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Rare" in animals==
It's not rare at all. Ask any farmer why they say cows are "bulling" when they come into estrus. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:09, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==''Extremely'' clear in the Bible?==
There's a delicate balance here, and this ''is'' Conservapedia. I'm glad to see the article saying there are "comparatively few references" to homosexuality in the Bible, which I think is objective and relevant. So I don't mind seeing it balanced.

But I think ''Extremely'' clear is overstating it.

''Extremely'' clear is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."

''Extremely'' clear is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

There's no reason at all why the Bible couldn't have said "Thou shalt not lie man with man and woman with woman," or whatever the appropriate wording would be.

The passage in Leviticus seems to say nothing about female homosexuality. And, as has been frequently been noted, "abomination" sounds strong, but ''it is the same word'' used about eating shellfish and sacrificing a blemished bullock and so forth.
The passage in Romans ''seems'' clear, but it seems clear both to conservatives and liberals, each of whom thinks it is clearly saying something different. It's a very puzzling passage if you don't have a commentator beside you "explaining" it. And it's not really ''about'' homosexuality, homosexuality just sort of comes in the middle of a whole bunch of stuff which is intended to show how "they" knew God but turned away from him. It's just one more indication of their corruptness, and it builds up to a peroration which is not about homosexuality at all.

And it's all about "they." He doesn't say in so many words "homosexuality is sinful." It's ''implied,'' yes, but because of that "they" you have to reason indirectly: "He wouldn't have used homosexuality as an indicator of 'their' decadence ''unless'' he thought homosexuality were sinful. He didn't actually say it because he just took it for granted that his audience already thought homosexuality was a sin." Plausible inference? Sure. ''Extremely'' clear? No.

It's as if a person in a book said "The Manson family! They wore their hair long, they didn't wash, they did drugs, and they committed murders" and someone interpreted this to mean "The book calls long hair sinful."

''Extremely'' clear? I don't think so.

I'd be OK with leaving the word "clear" and dropping the "extremely." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:09, 24 February 2007 (EST)

*For the record: it was JoshuaZ, not I, who recently removed the sentence "Even so, the Bible is extremely clear in its stance on this topic."

: To me the Bible is "extremely clear" on this issue (after all, I am the one who posted that). If you truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God (Jesus says you must believe this to be a Christian) then you have to believe that the Bible is against homosexuality. There are no two ways about it. God would never "imply" something. He says what he means and he means what he says. People who practice homosexuality "will not inherit the kingdom of heaven." If that's not enough to persuade someone than I don't know what is. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:00, 24 February 2007 (EST) PS. I too would be OK with putting it back up without the "extremely"

If the bible is extremely clear about homosexuality being a sin, then it is equally extremely clear about eating shellfish being sinful. Why don't modern conservative Christians pay more attention to the horrible abomination of shellfish eating that goes on every day in this country?--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 15:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the Bible is clear that there is some form of homosexual behavior that is in general unacceptable. In particular, the verse referring to inherting the kingdom of heaven is sometimes taken to be referring to pedophilia or similar Greek-style behavior. The OT verses are not obviously referring to non-Israelites. It is thus not "extremely clear" (I might be inclined to agree with "clear" but to claim this is extreme is just not accurate). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::::Well, you cannot reason with a homosexual. This is because God has given them over to their perversion and a reprobate mind, such that they cannot think clearly about anything. Don't even waste you time. For an example of what will happen to you if you support, endorse, tolerate, or engage with homosexuals, here is a great story told by God's of the eventual "reward" any person or society will receive for tolerating homosexuals -> [[Sodom]]. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 15:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Wow. Nice job of misinterpreting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has nothing to do with punishing homosexuality and everything to do with punishing inhospitality towards your fellow man.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, I can only say that I quoted the bible and presented the homosexual "twisted, reprobate mind" view and the literal fundamental view. That lava looks awful hot in that picture. I wonder if God "loved" the homosexuals in Sodom? I guess not -- that lava looks rather unpleasant. Do you think God killed all of them for being "rude to guests" or for being homoexuals? The bible says because they were "abominable" = homosexuals. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 15:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::RW, I will repost here what I said to someone else on this very topic:

:::::The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is '''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,''' or '''the people of the city, the people of Sodom'''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

:::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

:::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::You are flatly wrong. Please go and read the bible verses quoted at the end of the article. The homosexual inhabitants of the city tried to GANG RAPE the angels of God. No where else in all of scripture does any other group of sinners stoop to such vile lowliness to sexually assault Angels except Sodom -- very wicked indeed. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::So...you're saying that Ezekiel was either mistaken or lying, then?--[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Do you not think that the gang rape is more of a problem for god than whether the gang rape was gay or not? I think that the fact that the Sodomites wanted to rape visitors would be enough on its own to merit God's wrath. Who they wanted to rape os pretty irrelevant. Rape on its own is enough of an abomination.

:::::::Actually Wolf, it's not that he's wrong, but rather that he's relaying the story from a different belief. The idea that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah NOT because they were dens of homosexuality, but rather evil in a more general sense, is a Jewish belief. The Jewish believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were towns rife with inhospitable people, and Lot did offer up his daughter to them to attempt to save some of his guests. Also, rather than try to gang rape the angles as you put it, they tried to destroy them.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm no biblical scholar but I'm absolutely sure that picture is not in it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, that picture was apparently inspired by God through a Christian artist capturing the "heat" of the moment. God always uses the medium of fire to describe homosexuals. The word "faggot" means a burning bundle of sticks. That is described in the Bible as "homosexuals BURN in their lusts, and KINDLE God's wrath, and will BURN in the lake of fire forever". [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 15:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Produce that Bible verse right now.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::They are listed at the end of the article. Go read them. I will pray you are freed from your pro-homosexual views and delivered from this confusion. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I couldn't find any bible verses at the end of the article.. You're the one quoting, perhaps you could give us the citation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::That's because you did not read your bible. The verses are listed. Go and get a bible and read them. Here is a link to some of them.

* sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13)
* are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
* are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22)
* are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
* are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
* produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33)
* declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9)
* are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15)
* are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5)
[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::In response to some of your verses:

::::::* sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13)
::::::* are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
::::::- Sodom and Gomorrah is not a story directed at homosexuality, but inhospitality, as Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes clear. The story in Judges is a basic re-telling of the Genesis story. But, as in the first, it is directed against inhospitality, not homosexuality.

::::::* are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22)
::::::- This refers to the rite of same-sex prostitution in Pagan temples. It's not directed towards homosexuality in general.

::::::* are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
::::::- Lev. 20:13 also refers to the practice of same-sex prostitution in a Pagan temple, not homosexuality in general. It was a law against practicing pagan religion. Rom. 1:32 does not mention homosexuality.

::::::* are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
::::::- Deuteronomy, again, refers to the religious practices in Pagan temples. Matthew makes no mention of homosexuality. (And perhaps you should read Mat. 7:1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.") Phil. 3:2 also makes no mention of homosexuality.

::::::* produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33)
::::::- again, refer to my earlier statement on this story.

::::::* declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9) * are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15) * are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5)

:::::And so on and so on. What you have cited are misinterpretations and non-issues. Nowhere does it condemn homosexuals for simply being homosexuals. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Still looking for that lake of fire. I have a bible, I have read it. Thank you though. The psalms passage is clearly circular. It mentions nothing about homosexuals being workers of iniquity... and if the bible really thinks gay people can't blush, then there is one of those elusive errors in the bible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Keep going like you are, and one day you will get to see it in person. :-) [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Sigh, Wolf, could you NOT threaten people?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::He's not threatening me with violence, he's alleging that my eternal soul will be burned in a lake of fire. Of course, this runs counter to most interpretations of hell where it is merely the absence of the presence of God. But hey... I suppose it could be a lake of fire. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Eliminated liberal tripe about homosexual behavior in animals with more conservative views ==

Here is what I replaced the former material with:

"In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

(Er, what exactly is a "homosexual scientist"? --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 15:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT))

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html]

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html]"

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:42, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

== Added section on: Homosexuality in Humans and Genetics and Environment ==

I added the following material: "Statistical studies give ample evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, although it is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal ''Science'' it is reported that, "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993). [http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp][http://www.freetobeme.com/r_biol.htm] " [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative
Someone shrink the photo please, it is way too big, and i do not know how to resize it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This section is not accurate. There is evidence that genetic factors contribute to homosexuality, specifically a locus at the q28 region of the X chromosome. See, for example, Hamer et al. Genetics and male sexual orientation. ''Science'' '''285''': 803a-b 1999, or Mustanski et al. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. ''Human Genetics'' '''116''': 272-8. 2005.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:28, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Furthermore, scientists have produced homosexual behavior in fruit flies in gene alteration. The animal experts observing the experiment were quite sure/100% sure that the results were genuine "gay" preference, and not the result of excess sexual energy being transmitted. Results such as these downplay the belief that homosexuality is caused soley by environmental factors, though that still plays a part. Also, these studies show that, dispute claims otherwise, homosexuality is not a "choice" in many cases, though it cannot prove this for all cases. It simply adds credence to "gay's" stating that they didn't choose their sexual preference.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pop culture ==

Should there even be an entry on gay celebrities? I thought Conservapedia was steering clear of popular culture entries in favor of true encyclopedic content.

== Animals?! ==

Can I delete the section on homosexuality in animals? It seems superfluous at best, ignorant at worst, but most likely just useless.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:One part of being fair and balanced is the word balanced, showing one side of a political issue is completely stupid. It seems you would rather delete everything in the article except the biblical section. Just because something is not aligned in your views does not mean that it is stupid. If anything, we should delete the entire section about the bible.--[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical relevance ==

Is this not a page about homosexuality? I think the only sentence purely about homosexuality in the article is the first sentence and the latter sections. Why are there so many references to the bible? Shouldn't that be written in a "Homosexuality in relation to Christianity" article? I suggest a removal of all biased parts of this article especially the second sentence and first section. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 19:14, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Some of the article needs to be copy edited for spelling and grammatical errors. Unfortunately, I cannot do so. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh yeah, this page is locked to prevent liberal bias. Good job theres a nice chunk from the bible there to give us the facts! Any ideas when the page will be unlocked admin team? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

These Old Testament verses in Leviticus are not actually about homosexuality....
* Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
* Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
These verses are about two men lying down on the same bed that they sleep with their wife. This is a common practice when the day of working became to stressful and they just wanted to lie down for a minute. You see, when people other than a husband and wife lie on the same bed it can get quite unhygienic. Germs can spread quite easily, especially when coming back from working all day. Also, other men may have viruses or even plagues, which can often cause bloody lesions and scarring, so this is why it says, "their blood will be on their own heads", so to stop blood getting on the beds and spreading germs. These Leviticus verses were just a matter of public health like many other bible verses, not at all about sex. ([[User:Andy1024|Andy1024]] 02:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT))

It is telling that the Bible is invoked regarding Homosexuality (for which the references are scant and tenuous) but the wealth of biblical literature on [[Love]], the central motive of Christianity, is completely ignored.--[[User:I am the Lord|I am the Lord]] 13:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sexual orientation ==

Is there an explanation as to why Dean Hamer is defined here as a "gay researcher", unless it is intended to imply that his sexual preference may hinder his scientific objectivity.

That's obviously the implication, ridiculous though it may be. The person who wrote that section appears to have had difficulty understanding the research. For one thing, Hamer's results have been replicated. Also, 32 pairs of brothers who were not related? How does that make any sense?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there should be some mention as to homosexuality in a cross-cultural perspective. There are many different cultures through out the world and through time that have no problem with gays. See the modern day Pokomo of East Africa for very strong lesbian traditions. Also see American Indian Berdaches, and ritual homosexuality among some Melanesian tribes.
-Gasmonkey

:Wouldn't it be better to describe them as "researchers of homosexuality"? Although more likely they work under the title of "sexologist" assuming that's the field they work in. Either way, the way they are names seems a bit misleading. Assuming they aren't actually gay. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 05:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hamer is a geneticist.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::More importantly, is he a ''gay'' geneticist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why is that even remotely important?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Another Locked Page==

Wow, how surprising. Gosh, can't imagine who's editing it...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
: Nice little admin revert war going on now. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 22:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::John seems to be pointing out that wiping all the other cited information is wrong. Sadly, Conservative seems genetically incapable of recognizing that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== animals and homosexuality ==

John, how can you say that animals engage in homo'''sexuality''' when you don't know the behavior is sexual. Agression is not necessarily sexual pleasure. I will be back with a quote. OK? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Here is my quote:

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that '''appears to be homosexual'''. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

To interpret this as saying animal homosexual behaviors are in dispute is to suggest that homosexual behaviors exist at all--of course the reproductive instinct must be directed towards members of the opposite sex, whether in humans or animals! We still see homosexual behavior, though. What he's saying is that the animals aren't necessarily "gay." That doesn't mean they don't engage in homosexual acts. You grossly misinterpreted this statement. --[[User:John|John]] 22:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The word homo'''sexual''' means it is sexually driven behavior in at least my mind. It could be just aggression and showing the other animal who is boss. Do you see my point? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yeah. What the quote was saying is that the homosexual acts observed do not inherently mean that the animals are homosexual, i.e. that they only engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex. That does not mean their actions towards other animals are not sexual in nature. If a male animal, say, rapes another male animal in an expression of dominance, is rape not a sexual act because the intent was to show dominance? We might as well say that if the male animal had struck the other animal in a show of dominance, it was not a violent act because the intent was to show dominance. In other words, it may be aggressive and social-order-enforcing, but that doesn't mean it's not sexual. --[[User:John|John]] 22:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

John, neither you or I or scientist can read the animals minds in my opinion. How would you know if it was just dominance driven for example? Do you see my mind reading dilemna? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Of course we can't read the animal's mind. However, we can plainly observe a sexual act occurring. It may not have the intent of passion (since we can't read their minds), it may have the intent of aggression/dominance (since we can't read their minds), but it was clearly sexual. To call a sex act between two animals "not sexual" is ridiculous. --[[User:John|John]] 22:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is one of the most disgraceful pieces of "literature" that I have ever seen. The scientific inaccuracies are astounding. Please review the following topics: actual spellings of STDs (Furthermore, why are these specifically mentioned in this article? That is entirely inappropriate.), homosexual behavior amongst animals (see especially the bonobo, for example), and the actual link between genetics and homosexuality (the quotation from the ONE Science article was taken out of context).

== John I am pressed for time and .... ==

John, I am pressed for time. Do what you want with the animal behavior material. Astute readers will look at the talk/page. But please don't mess with my disease/mental health/ etc stuff. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Exactly, thank you Conservative. This is the way an encyclopedia should be run- with strict discipline and a keen eye on facts, as seen through the lens of His opinion. I recommend that you lock the page - but PLEASE, before you do so, re-insert your views in full. Then lock it. It's about time that we stop the liberals constantly editing these well-known and hard-to-access facts. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

Sorry 'godisgreat', but an encyclopedia is there to give information from many aspects of one subject, and the idea of a wiki is for a group of people to collaborate and edit ideas, info and facts. To lock a page because you don't/won't/can't accept the view point of others is extremley ignorant. If 'Conservative' does "re-insert his views in full. Then lock it", then he's going against the fundamental idea of a wiki. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Someone please do some research on homsexuality and promiscuity ==

Someone please do some research on homsexuality and promiscuity. Here is what I found so far: [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:'''Why'''? I mean, who is going to do research for a page that '''''THEY CANNOT EDIT?''''' --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Diggs is not known for his (shall we say) objectivity on this subject. The study to which he refers is enormously flawed; its subject sample was drawn solely from places where only the most promiscuous would hang out (bath houses, truck stop bathrooms, and so forth). More reliable studies indicate that heterosexuals and homosexuals have roughly equivalent number of sexual partners. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

The information about promiscuity seems suspect. Most, if not all (no date is given for the Journal of Sex Research Study) of the studies described took place before AIDS. I don't know this specifically but it seems highly likely that things have changed in the past 30 years. Also, as pointed out above, since the author is apparently trying to make the point that gay people are more promiscuous, there needs to be a comparison. What proportion of straight people do you think have only had sex with one person? Finally, what does APA's listing of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder 35 years ago have to do with marriage? Its inclusion is not useful in an encyclopedic sense.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cited more recently research plus some addition info. If anyone wants to offer other studies I would be interested. I think making vague allegations regarding studies but not offering your own studies is not very helpful. For example, please show me that Diggs in not known for his objectivity on this subject. Known by whom? Please show me a source which says the study was flawed that Diggs cited.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::WJThomas, I just looked at the study by Bell and Weinberg and I agree with you that the chose of recruiting respondents was poor. I removed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::Okay. I wasn't trying to sweat you; I was just giving my impressions based on a bit of quick googling. I also saw mentioned a couple of other studies that allegedly indicated that the mean number of sexual partners is roughly equal for gay and straight men. Another supposedly found that while gay men are more likely to have had multiple partners, they are also much more likely to be celibate(!). (J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60 / R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348 / D Binson-1995: Journal of Sex Research 32: 245-54 / M Dolcini-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25: 208-14). As for Dr Diggs, my quick googling certainly indicated that his conclusions were strongly disputed, but I didn't mean to suggest that he is dishonest or purposely twisting the data (I am not an expert on any of this, by any means). For whatever that may be worth... [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

==Hatchet Job==

Conservative, make sure you took out ALL the sourced facts that disagree with your pre-determined conclusions. It'd look bad to actually have some non-biased discussion on this page. Also, could you lock down some more pages? People are still able to contribute their viewpoints elsewhere. Thanks. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::How many articles have I locked? Can you show that I locked more than 2 articles? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Let's see...protection log. You've locked Dinosaur, Earth, Young Earth Creationism, Macroevolution. So that's 4. You've refused to unlock numerous other pages.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pages written or edited by a sole author or editor ought to be signed==
If this article is to be a work of sole authorship, it should say so; User:Conservative should put at the bottom of the page "by User:Conservative" or "under the editorial control of User:Conservative."

And s one of the complaints about Wikipedia is the irresponsibility encouraged by anonymity, User:Conservative should at least consider using his or her real name. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is apparently a wiki only on issues that have no possibility of controversy - those that are, it becomes a blog with a search engine that claim to speak for the community. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fine, but the blog-entry-like-content should be signed, as most real blog entries are. In the Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th Edition are "signed" with initials, but in the front of each volume is an index showing the names and credentials that go with each set of initials. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==He certainly spends a lot of time on this topic==
:Wait it's coming to me...'''The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.''' (From Hamlet (III, ii, 239). --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not funny. <s>Not funny when Ann Coulter does it, not funny when anyone else does it.</s> [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's not what Ann Coulter did. Ann Coulter used an offensive epithet. Had she merely been gay-baiting, she would not have gotten the attention she wanted. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 18:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, then. Modifying my comment above accordingly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality and pedophilia ==

I just found this: "Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." [http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. What '''are''' you trying to say? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the new version: "A study on pedophilia that was in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." [8] The same study notes: "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations..."

It just says that the number of heterosexual pedophiles is twice as many as the homosexual pedophiles in the general population. Of course, there are far more heteros and homosexuals in the population. The other sentence is pretty clear. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::Cracker, since you had a hard time understanding it I removed it because others likely would to. Here is what it now reads: A study on pedophilia that was in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations..."[8] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Will there be an item on the heterosexuality page which reads, "Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of heterosexual pedophilia between 67 percent and 81 percent of reported molestations..." ? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Given that homosexuals make up a small percentage of the population, I don't think that would be significant. [http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html][http://www.exodus.to/content/view/194/56/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Perhaps a reference from some time more recent than 1988? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Feel free to supply one from a reputable source, but I don't think the percentage of homosexuals has radically changed since 1988. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Oh, I didn't realize Exodus Ministries was a reputable source. Good to know.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm not sure you understand pedophiliacs, there really isn't "homosexual pedophilia" and "heterosexual pedophilia"; pedophiliacs will prey on whatever sexed child is available. Putting it here is ''non sequitur''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Cracker, I merely put in the percentage of pediphilia offenders who were homosexuals. Lets not over complicate it.
::::::::Dave, why don't you give a reputable source rather than whining about my source. I don't think you are being too constructive. Besides, the Exodus page merely cites the GSS survey which is a responsible survey that gave people the chance to anonymously answer.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::Conservative, for someone who blocks numerous pages, "constructive" should be the last word you use. As for your sources, the problem with determining an accurate count is that each side tends to be biased in their surveys. Most pro-gay surveys trend to the 10% level; most anti-gay surveys trend to the 1-2% level. My problem with this page (and frankly, with others you have blocked) is that you only show the surveys and numbers and quotes that back YOUR pre-determined viewpoint. If you showed both and then made the convincing argument, I'd have more respect for your work. But you cite Exodus Ministries, which is as biased a source as you could find on this subject. So why should I, or anyone else, take your work seriously?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I think it'd be a generally good idea to rely more on unbiased sources--i.e. NOT advocacy groups for either side. At present, this article is almost nothing but advocacy groups. --[[User:John|John]] 23:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Actually, conservative, you merely put in the percentage of pedophilia offenders ''reported'' who were homosexual. And your source doesn't provide the methodology they used to get the number. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.</blockquote> [[http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html]]

You might find the entire article interesting, Conservative. And Pedophilia is spelled with an o. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am rather clueless and I need to ask a really dumb question. What is sexual orientation?
I hate to quote a liberal but Bill Clinton did say he did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky. I believe that Bill was referring to "oral sex" as not being sex. I believe he is correct. Bill knows this is an act of sodomy - oral sodomy. From a law perspective, Bill is a lawyer, sodomy is defined in two flavors: oral and anal. So I ask the question about sexual orientation and I keep coming to the same answer, sex requires one man and one woman. Two men or two woman can only engage in sodomy. They are no different than my desk and the floor lamp in my office. A desk and a floor lamp cannot engage in sex either. By definition this group of people are not engaging in sex and are non-sexual. The non-word homosexual should not exist. The non-word heterosexual should not exist. People are either sexual or non-sexual. Whether one looks to the Bible or to evolution sodomy is not sex. Sodomy is just masturbation in stereo. Marriage is an institution created to protect the children who are the products of sex. Sodomy is must less than sex and is actually a selfish activity for the creation of orgasms. The performance of sodomy by two men or two woman seems to fall in the category of a hobby. People have many types of attractions in their lives, food, nicotine, drugs, alcohol, and orgasms. I don't see where "attraction orientation" is being created by soft-headed judges - yet. I would like "conservative pedia" to stop playing the gay mafia's game and use the above argument to fight this nonsense that "homosexuality" exists.
:You're arguing semantic. As soon as a "non-word" is put into general usage it becomes a word. That's how language <strike>evolves</strike> is designed. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I would say how language is misused or abused. I'm sure language can undergo adaptation...

"Sodomy" doesn't have any well-defined meaning. As it falls under the category of things that are regulated by the states, the definition of "sodomy" varies from one state to another. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Sodomy is defined in the Bible and its definition has been around for quite a while. The sodomites have a website that actively argues for the repeal of laws against sodomy regardless of who is envolved (e.g. same sex or opposite sex couples.) Continuing to use the definitions and words defined by the left only provides legitimacy to them. George Orwell's book 1984 taught a clear lesson, he who controls the dictionary can control the masses. The left does this daily, "lawmakers" is used on NPR to refer to elected representatives,probably in hopes that the people will eventually stop voting, "wetlands" is used to refer to swamp land, "rain forest" which is redundant, a forest without rain is a desert. NPR missuses "gender" in referring to people. Words have gender while people have sex.

::I decided to remove the pediphilia material. If anyone wants to do more research on this material it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==This article should be renamed...==
...to "A selective collection of everything User:Conservative could dig up that is negative about homosexuality."

I can't think of any practical value such material has except to serve as a handy source for people trying to make similarly polemic compilations.

It is a point of view that is held by many within the Christian conservative community. It is appropriate for Conservapedia to give more weight to the views of that community than Wikipedia does. That still does not make this article "fair" or "balanced." It does not, for example, acknowledge the existence of any differences in opinion that exist ''within the Christian community'' about the morality of homosexuality.

If its purpose is to shape the opinions of youthful readers, it probably will fail. The material Conservative has added is so obviously and wildly over-the-top that it reminds me of the anti-marijuana films they used to show in the days when it was spelled "marihuana." Telling kids that one in ten heavy smokers will get lung cancer doesn't stop them from smoking. Saying that 35 in a million people who engage in anal sex will get anal cancer is not going to turn a gay person straight.

Given its length, it is also an '''unkind''' article. What is the range of opinion in the Christian community about what you should ''do'' when you discover, as is pretty likely, that somebody important to you is gay? Stone him? Slap him into aversive therapy? Shrug it off and accept him as one might accept other imperfect human beings? Give him a hug and support him in whatever direction he chooses to take? The article does not address this question at all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Even the first sentence is wrong. It says, "Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the Bible as explained below." The Bible does not condemn a sexual ''attraction''. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Drbsmith, I believe in this section you failed to mention one other option that is mentioned in the "Homosexuality and Reports of People Leaving Homosexuality". There are reports of people leaving homosexuality forever. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Anal sex and disease ==

I added a new section called "Anal Sex and Disease". If anyone wants to additional research on this topic it would be welcomed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:I'm no expert in this field, but where is the real connection to "Homosexuality" aside from "They do it, too"? This is an issue of anal sex and the risk of disease, not of homosexuality. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I added a sentence regarding the prevalence of anal sex and homosexuals as reported by the Centers for Disease Control. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Like I said: "They do it, too." Anal sex is not a homosexual-only thing, so this should be covered in an article about anal sex. Or are you going to add another section called "Driving cars and deadly accidents", citing some study about how homosexuals also have driver's licenses and how driving a car is a considerable risk? (To pick a consciously over-the-top example) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality and Reports of People Leaving Homosexuality ==
"Many people have reported leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith."
The web pages cited include a total of less than ten people. "Many" seems a stretch - "some" or even "a few" would be a more accurate representation of the sources cited.

:::I know of at least 3 people personally. I could have given more websites that I found. If anyone wants to suggest more websites it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::I added two more footnotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::I know of at least four people who personally who ''told me'' they had quit smoking, but all but one of them was smoking again within a couple of years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::All oral fixations are toughies. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the footnotes. Now we're up to a max of 81 people. Taken along with dpbsmith's comment, I'm still not sure we're up to "many". "Some" would put the idea out there without making a claim that is not really supported by the data cited. In addition, I'm not sure "becoming heterosexual" is quite accurate - my understanding (which could be wrong - I'm not an expert, just a careful listener when this is debated on TV) is that there is a difference between reduced same-sex attraction and actually becoming attracted to the opposite sex instead, and that the former is a more accurate representation of these people's collective experiences. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I increased the number of footnotes. In addition, here is one man's story: "I also found many men and women who were able to walk away from homosexuality, which offered me hope and confirmed that change was possible." [http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/03/like_many_my_faith_journey.html]
:::::::And that is just one man's story. I personally know 3 people who walked away from homosexuality through their Christian faith and I don't even belong to a large church. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Washington Blade ==

"The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper" Can newspapers really be homosexual? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the suggestion. I removed the phrase as it wasn't really needed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::Hey [[User:Conservative| Conservative]], when are you going to start on the [[heterosexuality]] page?

:::I don't really see anything wrong with the reference. That's what the Washington Blade is, for better or for worse. I guess you could say a newspaper of the homosexual community or something like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality/pedophilia/Catholic priests/young boys/Roman Catholic Church ==

I know the whole Homosexuality/pedophilia/homosexuals/Catholic priests/young boys/Roman Catholic Church issue is a hot topic albeit it not as hot as it used to be. Anyone have any suggestions? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:As a starting point, choose an encyclopedia or similar reference work that you trust. Not a magazine article, not a Christian evangelical website. Find an article that treats of the topic of "homosexuality" as a whole. See what it thinks are the ''important'' things that need to be said about the topic of "homosexuality." Your article here doesn't need to be an exact parallel, but you need to have an explanation, at least in your own mind, of why you decided a certain subtopic was more important or less important than they did.

:The Catholic clergy sex-abuse scandal has been a major continuing news event of the 1990s and 2000s that has shaken Roman Catholics in the U. S. and subjected the dioceses in several cities to lawsuits that theaten their financial existence. But what's the reason for including it here? Is it more than just "homosexuality in the news?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks like something thrown up here as a smear attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

:Hey [[User:Gasmonkey| Gasmonkey]] it's customary to sign your posts, especially nice to do when you're making an accusation. Anyway...
:I don't think it's a smear on the RCC, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is just trying to pin as much dirt on the "Joe Average" homosexual as he can, I'm surprise he hasn't already mentioned John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer just to sweeten up his little tour de farce. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is a minefield. It will indeed have the ''appearance'' of anti-Catholicism if User:Conservative does not tread very, very carefully. Using casual language like "a hot topic albeit it not as hot as it used to be" does not suggest sensitive footwork. A ''appearance'' of being anti-Catholic will alienate a group that might be otherwise be expected to be supportive of Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Women Who Have Sex with Women Commonly Have Sexual Relations With Men ==
In this section, you have cited a web page, which sites a newspaper article, which cites a study. The newspaper article is no longer available at the given URL, and there is no information about the study other than the name of the journal in which it appears. If we are going to be scholarly here, especially in the field of medical research, we need to provide a citation to the actual study - the primary source. My experience has been that medical studies are often misunderstood and/or misrepresented, usually not out of malice or bias but often simply because the person writing about them does not have a scientific or medical background. You have written A 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases stated that "the study's data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men." [14] The study also stated: "sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV." [15] I am somewhat skeptical about this study. In order to put the information you have presented in context, I would like to know who the study group was, how many women were studied and so on; information that would be in a primary source. When it comes to STDs and public health, understanding the population of the study is quite important! We need to set an example for the students who are using this site, and cite primary sources. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I agree that information has to be verifiable. I will delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Thanks!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==From a gay man's perspective==
At the risk of being censored or blocked from the site, I'd like to make two observations about homosexuality that would explain the conclusions drawn on the main page. First off, as far as the spread of disease is concerned, you have to understand what the colon is used for primarily and understand that a greater percentage of men don't use condoms since guys can't get pregnant. Secondly, as far as promiscuity is concerned... uh... we are the ones with the higher sex drive. What were you expecting? It all comes back to sexual education. I would agree that there is a slight bias in the facts, but that *some* of the conclusions are accurate nonetheless. Conservative, I know you have to be worried about vandalism, but you should consider opening the page to trusted contributors.

Edit: I meant to make a comment on mental disorder. The study focuses on homophobia and discrimination as a source of mental disorder. But there is a whole array of other psychological pressures that comes from being gay. I would suggest that stress, as well as the general pressure of "identity crisis" has a huge impact. While homosexuality is "accepted" it is not considered "normal". There is a significant difference, even in countries such as the Netherlands and Canada.
Regards, --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for contributing. I, like you, wish Conservative would open up this article to editing. But he's proven intractable and fairly stuck in his ways, so while I wish you luck, I would not expect much. But again, your commentary would be very welcome... if [[user:Conservative|Conservative]] cared about neutrality :-( --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::This isn't Neutrapedia... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nor is it FundamentalistChristianopedia. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The commandment dealies seem to militate in favor of Neutrapedia. Or at least Teachthecontroversepedia. I personally think Wikipedia is neutral, btw, but, meh.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I also see Wikipedia as neutral. However, here, it ''has'' to be "Neutrapedia" when there is a significant scientific or philosophical viewpoint (i.e. Gays aren't all bad) that aren't being represented. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wonder how frequnt mental disorders are among homosexual men and women in "gay" enclaves like Provincetown, Massachusetts; Greenwich Village, New York; and San Francisco. With a supportive 'brotherhood' around them, the effects of a supposedly "homophobic" culture would be filtered out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== removed from [[Marriage]] ==

I removed the following text from the top of the [[marriage]] article, and wanted to add it to the marriage section of this article, but it's protected so that I can't:

----
In the civilized Western world marriage as an institution between one man and one woman has been a cornerstone of community for many hundreds of years. Recently there has been a push by [[liberal]]s for "same-sex marriage". A large portion of the reason for this push is because of the benefits married people gain in the United States, especially in regard to property rights. Same-sex marriage has no basis in scripture. In United States law, marriage is defined by each state and same-sex marriage is allowed only in Massachusetts. It might be worthwhile to note that interracial marriage was illegal in most states during the 19th century<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html Marriage in the March of Time]</ref>.
----
--[[User:Scott|Scott]] 04:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The benefits angle is important to the "gay marriage" debate. I believe the [[gay rights]] position is (1) marriage is a "benefit" granted to certain couples. (2) It's unfair to give '''any''' benefit to one class of people but not to others. (3) Therefore it's only fair to provide this "benefit" to homosexual couples.

:Conservative rebuttals to this argument generally include any of the following ideas:
:#Marriage is not a benefit granted by society as much as it is an institution which '''contributes''' to society.
:#Marrigaes are recognized and protected, to encourage men and women to marry - because it benefits society when they do.
:#Homosexuals do not really want to be "married" to their same-sex partners.
:#The [[gay rights]] movement is merely using the issue to destroy the institution of marriage.
:#Homosexuals hate the stigma of being branded [[fornicator]]s. "Outside the city are the dogs and fornicators" (Rev. 22) If they have the right to marry, they can claim the same social standing as heterosexuals and shield themselves from this stigma.
:#The push for 'gay marriage' is part of an agenda (i.e., campaign or movement) to outlaw criticism of homosexuality. Note the definition of "homophobia" at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and the identification of "any criticism of homosexuality itself" as [[hate speech]]. (This ignores or repudiates the dictum, "Hate the sin, love the sinner.")

:I would like to see both sides of the argument over 'gay marriage' in Conservapedia. But let us be cautious to identify sides and not state "as fact" any position which is merely one side's point of view.

:It is a fact that AIDS originally spread in the homosexual population much, much more than among heterosexuals. It is an [[opinion]] that AIDS is a punishment from God. Etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Many People" ==
"Many people have reported leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith."

That's a section? One sentence is a section?

Many people? How many is many people? 10? 10,000? It implies that there are a large number of people that have swapped over since becoming Christian, but 3 could be "many". It needs to be changed.

Also, I'm sure many people have left homosexualily through other faiths too. Infact, I've just googled it and found that a few people have indeed left it through other faiths.

You can hardly have a neutral encyclopaedia if it's "locked" away, like this page. Somebody needs to unblock this page. I know there's a concern for vandalism, but people have contributions to make to this article, this encyclopaedia.

I shall return, I'm eagar to start editing.
--[[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 17:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I increased the number of footnotes. In addition, here is one man's story: "I also found many men and women who were able to walk away from homosexuality, which offered me hope and confirmed that change was possible." [http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/03/like_many_my_faith_journey.html]
:And that is just one man's story. I personally know 3 people who walked away from homosexuality through their Christian faith and I don't even belong to a large church. Lastly, if you want to have a statement supported with footnotes that people left homosexuality through other faiths with testimonials then please give the footnotes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

::What I would prefer is actual proof that they stopped being homosexual, not just stopped having homosexual sex. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 19:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interesting discussion of it [http://www.acsblog.org/equal-protection-and-due-process-sexual-identity-immutability-and-marriage.html from a legal group].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal and conservative interpretations of the Bible==

A lot of ink has been spilled trying to make the Bible excuse homosexuality, but this view ignores Christian tradition. For example, the Evangelical Presbytarian Church says:

*Jesus did not refer directly to homosexuality. However, our Lord made clear that He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. He not only fulfilled it, He strengthened it. For example, it was not enough to refrain from the act of adultery. Jesus declared that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:27,28). He authoritatively interpreted the Mosaic Law, rather than dismissed it, as some exegetes contend. Thus Jesus affirmed the continuing validity of the Old Testament moral law, including prohibitions against homosexual behavior. [http://www.epc.org/about-epc/position-papers/homosexuality.html]

And there is case of a law appling only to men and not to women, so the idea that male homosexuality is wrong but lesbianism is okay doesn't hold water.

Not to say that God "wants to condemn" people who commit sin (another common Liberal misconception) - just that God did specify certain things we must not do. Whether we listen to Him is up to us, "reap what you sow", etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Him"? I didn't know G/d had a penis? Well... I guess that's the sort of thing you miss out on when you've had an Oxford Scholar teaching you theology for 4 years. ~ [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incorrect Citation under Promiscuity ==

The Rotello citation regarding promiscuity is incomplete. The statement attributed to Rotello is his quote of another author, per the source.
As the article is locked, I have no recourse but to bring this to the attention of those with the power to ensure the site's accuracy.
Would suggest unlocking the article to registered users, so that information herein may be expanded and proofed in order to present "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but...".
::Could you be more specific? What is the exact quote? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Yes, all source material has to be vetted by our resident expert. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Um, there is exactly ONE Rotello quote in the article. How can you be MORE specific? But to help you along (since we all know how hard it is to actually read sources beyond the interesting quote), here is the snippet from the source you reference (bold emphasis mine):
{{QuoteBox|Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'"4 Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. 
[...] 
4. Gabriel Rotello, ''Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men'', p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 '''(quoting gay writer Michael Lynch)'''.}}
:::Is this specific enough for you? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually, now the citation is completely wrong, since you have simply plagiarized the site you are citing in order to get at the words you are trying to quote. Seriously, this is "educational"? I'd be more than happy to fix the article, quote, and citation - but the article is locked to prevent further...ummm...(education would be my guess)...[[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 19:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I deleted the quote. If you want to suggest a way to put it back in I can do it for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Homosexual Subculture ==

For Homosexuals and other sinners, Bear is a term for a bearded and otherwise hirsute (possessing of much somatic hair) individual engaged in various sexually immoral acts and activities outside of Marriage and God's Law. In many cases, the secularist media makes light of these horrendous fetish activities. [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-kaye4feb04,0,4434978.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary] Noted homosexual commentator [[Andrew Sullivan]] has admitted that he, personally, considers himself a bear. [http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000544.php]

This should be added, as these mating interests are an important contribution to immoral behavior. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:How, precisely? The last sentence is the one that really needs a cite.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Two see also sections ==

There are two see also sections, one with [[Bisexuality]] one with [[Homosexual agenda]]. <s>Still nothing for [[heterosexuality]]?</s> My bad, there it is. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah... there are still two see also sections. That would be soooo easy to merge. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::This is fun... can a sysop please merge the two see also sections? I'd do it, but... you know, it's locked. Having two see also sections makes the article a little silly(er). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Been a while since I bumped this. Maybe I should move it to the bottom? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Some days I wish upon a star that a sysop who can edit this page will notice the two see also sections and merge them. But it never happens. *Sigh* [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:21, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Praise be! [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And it took only... ten or eleven days or so? Good to know that the Talk page is so closely monitored. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ancient Greece==

Activists sometimes point to existence of homosexuality in Ancient Greece as some kind of "proof" that it is morally okay for modern people to perform [[homosexual act]]s. This is as lame a view as the idea that the Old & New Testaments contain no prohibitions against homosexuality.

Here's a bit of history:
*"Of course homosexuality existed in Greece, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death." [http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm]

See also "Abuse of Boys and Slaves by the Homosexual Patriarchs of Ancient Greece and Rome" [http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/greece.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with making generalizations based on a study of a non-random population ==

Under "Promiscuity", I have noticed a statement that cites an article that cites a study, rather than giving a citation to the original study. We need to cite the original study, so that readers can understand the population studied, the number of subjects, and any limitations on the study. This understanding is *critical* if we are to use medical studies in a responsible, scientifically accurate way.

This conservapedia article states: "A study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1.5 years on average. [11][12]" Both citations are articles that cite the same Dutch study. It fails to point out that this study was done on ***PEOPLE WITH AIDS***. It is not unreasonable to assume that a population of people who have a sexually transmitted disease have a higher rate of promiscuity (multiple partners) than the general population. In fact, couples who are completely monogamous will be disease-free, and thus NOT represented in the population studied AT ALL! You clearly *CANNOT* extrapolate from the population in this study to the population in general.

As I have mentioned before, my experience has been that medical studies are often misunderstood and/or misrepresented in articles about them, usually not out of malice or bias but often simply because the person writing about them does not have a scientific or medical background. If we want people to take this site seriously, *especially* when it comes to scientific matters, we *must* adopt at least the basic methods of scientific inquiry, which means citing *and reading* the original study (the "primary source") before making a statement based on the results of that study - it's the only way we can be scientifically accurate. Clearly, the statement "A study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1.5 years on average. [11][12]" is *NOT* an accurate representation of the study data. This statement should be removed from the article. Thank you. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:I fully agree with you, especially with your more global point. Sources have to be tracked, read, cited properly, and integrated into the article without misrepresenting what the source actually says. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I deleted the 1.5 year material. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative - thank you for deleting the 1.5 year material. However, the other two items in the promiscuity section each cite an article that briefly references a study, instead of citing the original study. I am concerned about "errors in translation" similar to those found earlier. In the case of this topic in particular, it is especially critical to know the makeup of the population studied in order to know if it is appropriate to extrapolate the study's conclusions to the general population. I understand your efforts to build this article, but it's important not to take shortcuts if we want this article to be taken seriously. If you are going to mention the conclusion of a medical study, again, it is very important for you to ***read and then cite the original study***. Otherwise, it is very easy to mistakenly draw conclusions that are not supported by the original study. (After spending some time looking at the actual studies referred to in articles, you will find that it is not at all uncommon for members of the media to misinterpret medical studies, again perhaps not out of malice or bias, but simply because reporters are not scientists.) When dealing with a subject as important as this one, and when this site is, in part, an educational example for high school students, it is critical to get the science and the academic methodology right. Please consider taking some time to go through this article to verify that each section which mentions a study cites the original study (including the name of the article, name of the author, name of the journal, issue number, month & year of publication, and ideally a link to at least the abstract if not the full article), and that the statements made here accurately reflect the results of the study cited. I know this will take some time, but it will be worth it to be accurate on this very important entry. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==AIDS statistic==

My younger brother, who is a non-conservative high school student, was looking at Conservapedia after he saw me editing it, and he told me that he thought the statistic on the amount of AIDS patients who are homosexual was blatantly wrong. The source given could be better, and the statistic given is almost 10 years old. Perhaps somebody who has been involved in writing this article should take a look at it. At the very least, we could use a newer statistic. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am guessing if someone digs around the CDC site that a new statistic could be given. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I don't believe the CDC askes AIDS patients whether they are homosexual. In any case, such statistics are unreliable. The statistic should be removed.[[User:DavidB|DavidB]] 02:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Biblical injunctions==

Cut from article:

: it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and the only reference in the New Testament is in the letters of Paul.

This makes the argument that "Jesus didn't condemn it, so it's okay." But who was it who said in Revelations 22, "Outside the city are ... the fornicators"? This is generally interpreted by Christians as a condemnation of all extramarital sex. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Which is an excellent reason not to allow "gay marriage"; if they think it's legitimate marriage they might think they're "okay" by Jesus? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 20:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Lesbians ==

I note that four quotes from the Bible are used in support of the proposition that homosexuality is condemned by that august tome. Whilst the first two quotes from Leviticus seem pretty down on male homosexuality they do not mention lesbianism at all. The quote from Corinthians merely says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. I don't think you could properly characterise that as condemnation. We are left with the quote from Romans. That quote refers to lesbianism as unnatural and abnormal. Again hardly condemnation. Would you like me to draft the appropriate amendments? I see that the page is locked and I can't change it myself. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is such a tired old recycled argument, that the horse it rode in one has lame feet and saddle sores.

:Homosexuality includes Lesbianism, which is merely the female variant. Don't start quoting from the dozens of books written by [[gay rights]] activists re-interpreting the Bible to justify their proclivities.

:On the other hand, the article '''should''' mention the existence of dissenting views. Conservapedia should not be like *cough* other wiki-based encyclopedias which (1) claim to be unbiased yet (2) censor opposing views.

:The traditional view is that homosexual acts are forbidden, along with incest, etc.

:BUT I do not intend to let conservatives off the hook. Adultery, racism, greed, indifference, all the sins of the Pharisees are "couching at the door" if they try to claim the [[moral high ground]] too quick!

:I will close tonight's sermon with a simple [[homily]]: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's all very well Ed but you didn't answer my proposition (which I am proud to say I thought up myself without the aid of any gay rights activists (or their tired old horses)). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Marriage

2007-04-21T06:39:04Z

DavidB:

'''Marriage''' is a form of interpersonal relationship; a kind of social contract. The word "marriage" by itself encompasses a broad range of meanings,<ref>The American Heritage dictionary includes legal marriage between a man and a woman, common-law marriage, and same-sex marriage[http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/M0120200.html]</ref> but it is often short for ''Christian marriage'' or ''holy matrimony,'' which is ordained by God and considered a [[sacrament]] by [[Roman Catholics]][http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm] (but not most [[Protestant]] denominations). In a few times and places, other forms existed, such as [[polygamy]] (multiple spouses) and [[homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual]] marriage (two people of the same sex).

In most cultures, marriage is regarded as a life-long commitment to another person, under any circumstances. Frequently this involves a public commitment ceremony (called a wedding) to each other and, if the participants are Christian, before God.<ref>[http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/marriage/marriage.html The Marriage Service], ''The Church of England'', Retrieved 20 March 2007</ref> Unfortunately, sometimes people do not or cannot maintain that commitment, and the marriage ends in [[divorce]].

In most countries, married couples are treated as a single economic entity, and when one partner dies, the other may inherit all of their property in a simpler system than would be required without the marriage.

African-Americans were not allowed to marry in all areas of the United States until after the [[Civil War]], and mixed race couples were only allowed to marry in all areas of the US after a 1967 decision in the [[United States Supreme Court]]. Conservatives and Christian groups fought to retain these racist laws, but failed.

Same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in many areas of the world, although this restriction was lifted in April 2001 by [[Holland]] and January 2003 by [[Belgium]], as well [[Spain]], [[South Africa]], and a growing number of other nations. Stanley Kurtz, an editor of right-wing journal the National Review, argues that this is "destroying" traditional marriage in Sweden.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp]</ref> By the end of 2004, same-sex marriage was legal in most [[Canadian]] provinces and in the [[Yukon]] and is now enshrined in Canadian federal law C-38. <ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm]</ref>

==Marriage in the Bible ==

The [[Old Testament]] clearly allows polygymy. (Gen. 4:19, Gen. 16:1-4, Gen. 26:34, Gen. 32:32, Exodus 21:10, Dt. 21:15, Judges 8:30, I Sam 1:1-2, II Sam 12:7-8, I Kings 11:2-3, I Chron. 4:5, II Chron. 11:21, II Chron. 13:21, II Chron 24:3.) This is less common, but never outlawed, in the New Testament.

The Old Testament allows for the purchase of wives (Gen. 29:18, I Sam. 18:25-27).

The clearest description of marriage in the Bible comes from I Corinthians 7:1-16:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

</blockquote>

==Christianity==

In most branches of Christianity, marriage is a life-long religious union between a man and a woman. However, many Christian groups acknowledge that [[celibacy]] is more holy than marriage, and some, such as the Shakers, have gone so far as to prohibit marriage.

==Mormonism==

Historically, [[Mormonism]] has practiced polygyny (more than one wife). It stopped being a part of mainstream Mormonism in 1890, but some fringe groups still practice it.

==Islam==

Islam allows [[Muslim]] men to have up to four wives. The [[Qu'ran]] says(4:3): "Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." <ref>http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM</ref>

Before Islam, it was common for a man to have many wives. The limit of four imposed by Islam was a way of controlling the situation. A Muslim may marry up to four women only on condition he deals justly with all of them. For example, he must provide each with separate living accommodation. Since this is difficult, most Muslim men in practice do not have more than one wife.

The reason for allowing multiple wives was for the welfare of widows and orphans. Muslim men are required to be financially responsible for the members of their family, and this was a way of ensuring that there was somebody to take responsibility for widows' and orphans' welfare.

It also allowed for a man who wished to father children to take another wife if his first wife was barren, and allowing the first wife to choose whether to continue in the marriage. A Muslim man is not allowed to marry another woman without the knowledge and consent of his wife, and the wife has the right to ask for divorce if she does not agree.<ref>http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=795</ref>

==Civil marriage==

Civil marriage is a legal [[contract]]. In the state constitutions of almost all states, this contract must be between one man and one woman. It gives each member certain rights and obligations. Most commonly, these include power of attorney, [[inheritance]] rights, sharing finances, and rights in relation to any children they may have. With the advent of no-fault divorce, most of these rights and obligations can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason.

Most European nations, Canada, South Africa and some US states allow same-sex couples to gain benefits by registering a legal commitment, although as some kind of disincentive scheme, they often acquire fewer advantages than opposite-gender couples receive automatically upon marriage.

In the U.S. there are over a thousand federal benefits to marriage but none to same-sex civil partnerships. Couples registering same-sex relationships receive some state benefits in [[California]], [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]] and [[Vermont]]. Rights accruing from same-sex marriages contracted in other states are respected in [[Rhode Island]], and some restricted benefits are available to same-sex partners in [[Hawaii]] and [[Maine]].<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Ann Coulter

2007-04-21T06:09:18Z

DavidB:

[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent who has written five
bestselling [[United States of America|American]] books
that present [[conservative]] views.

Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives for
her patriotic stances against [[liberal]]ism, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt the [[United States of America|United States]], and her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]]. She has stated that she is not impartial or balanced.<ref name="polemicist">Aloi, Daniel. "[http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April06/coulter.pre.dea.html Conservative pundit Ann Coulter '84 to speak May 7]". ''[[Cornell University|Cornell University Chronicle]]''. [[April 17]] [[2006]]. Retrieved on [[July 10]] [[2006]].</ref>

In ''Godless'' Coulter argues that liberals make a religion out of their beliefs which they follow with the same sort of intolerant zeal which condemn in [[fundamentalist]]s. "Liberalism is a comprehensize belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

As a Christian, Coulter attributes to the Judeo-Christian tradition the view that human beings are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism|Godless: The Church of Liberalism]],''
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]],''
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]],''
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]],'' and
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]].''

==Quotes==
* "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the ''New York Times'' Building."<ref name="Coultergeist"> Gurley, George. [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NYOB&p_theme=nyob&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=coultergeist&s_dispstring=coultergeist&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no "Coultergeist"]. ''New York Observer''. [[August 26]], [[2002]]. Retrieved on [[October 7]], [[2006]]. [$2.95 charge required to view article]</ref>
* "Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" Note: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.<ref name="fifth estate">[http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html Sticks and Stones], ''the fifth estate'', CBC Television, aired [[January 26]], [[2005]]</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]

[[Category:Authors|Coulter, Ann]]
[[Category:Women|Coulter, Ann]]

Ann Coulter

2007-04-21T06:02:22Z

DavidB:

[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent who has written five
bestselling [[United States of America|American]] books
that present [[conservative]] views.

Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives for
her patriotic stances against [[liberal]]ism, her outspokenness against all those who wish to hurt the [[United States of America|United States]], and her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]]. She has stated that she is not impartial or balanced.<ref name="polemicist">Aloi, Daniel. "[http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April06/coulter.pre.dea.html Conservative pundit Ann Coulter '84 to speak May 7]". ''[[Cornell University|Cornell University Chronicle]]''. [[April 17]] [[2006]]. Retrieved on [[July 10]] [[2006]].</ref>

In ''Godless'' Coulter argues that liberals make a religion out of their beliefs which they follow with the same sort of intolerant zeal which condemn in [[fundamentalist]]s. "Liberalism is a comprehensize belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

As a Christian, Coulter attributes to the Judeo-Christian tradition the view that human beings are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism|Godless: The Church of Liberalism]],''
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]],''
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]],''
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]],'' and
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]].''

==Quotes==
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]

[[Category:Authors|Coulter, Ann]]
[[Category:Women|Coulter, Ann]]

Racism

2007-04-21T05:51:22Z

DavidB:

Racism is the process of making judgments based on race. Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions, (see [[prejudice]]) and then making such generalizations part of society. An example is notions of black inferiority being manifested in the form of Jim Crow laws (see [[discrimination]]). As of recent, racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the equal protection clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Conservatives have a long history of racist beliefs, and attempts to retain racist institutions such as segregation.
[[category:psychology]]

Gun control

2007-04-21T05:49:40Z

DavidB:

{{merge|Gun Control}}

'''Gun control''' refers to all laws enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]]. A common use of firearms are to defend one's life, though accidental death of those who are attacking has occurred. These laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the concentration of firearms ownership in the hands of the state. This is why gun control is promoted by various statist philosophies such as [[Communism]], [[Socialism]], and [[Fascism]].

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on this right. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

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

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

==Objections to gun control==
Gun control laws often lead to gun confiscation.

Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>. Guns are freely available in nearby Virginia however. All Western nations which have stricter gun control laws have lower death by shooting rates than the United States.

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

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

<references/>

Feminism

2007-03-12T07:09:38Z

DavidB:

Feminism is the philosophy that the sexes deserve to have equal rights. For some reason, many conservatives oppose feminism.

Slavery

2007-03-12T07:07:36Z

DavidB: Cleaned up

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient Greece and ancient Egypt, where 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.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the Roman Empire. Christianity helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among Arabs.

==Recent History==

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. Millions of African slaves were brought by the Spanish and Portuguese to Mexico, Peru, the Caribbean and especially Brazil. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to Europe when the Muslims ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Great 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.

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. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

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.

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.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

The Germans used slaves during World War II, particularly Jews, Russians and Slavs whom the Germans all felt were racially inferior.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. There are many instances, just one in the Gospel of Matthew states that "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made".<ref>Matthew 18:25</ref> It is not clear why these parts of the Bible are not supported by those who profess every line of it to be the Word of God.

==References==
<references/>

Slavery

2007-03-12T07:05:07Z

DavidB:

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls the slave and tells him what to do.

Slavery has existed at least since ancient Greece and ancient Egypt, where 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.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the Roman Empire. Christianity helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among Arabs.

Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. There are many instances, just one in the Gospel of Matthew states that "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made".<ref>Matthew 18:25</ref> It is not clear why these parts of the Bible are not supported by those who profess every line of it to be the Word of God.

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. Millions of African slaves were brought by the Spanish and Portuguese to Mexico, Peru, the Caribbean and especially Brazil. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to Europe when the Muslims ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Great 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.

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. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

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.

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.

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

The Germans used slaves during World War II, particularly Jews, Russians and Slavs whom the Germans all felt were racially inferior.

Slavery

2007-03-12T07:04:47Z

DavidB: Slavery in the Bible

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls the slave and tells him what to do.

Slavery has existed at least since ancient Greece and ancient Egypt, where 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.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the Roman Empire. Christianity helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among Arabs.

Salvery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. There are many instances, just one in the Gospel of Matthew states that "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made".<ref>Matthew 18:25</ref> It is not clear why these parts of the Bible are not supported by those who profess every line of it to be the Word of God.

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. Millions of African slaves were brought by the Spanish and Portuguese to Mexico, Peru, the Caribbean and especially Brazil. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to Europe when the Muslims ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Great 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.

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. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

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.

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.

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

The Germans used slaves during World War II, particularly Jews, Russians and Slavs whom the Germans all felt were racially inferior.

Bonobo

2007-03-12T06:54:33Z

DavidB: /* Anatomy and Behavior */

''Bonobos'', or "pigmy chimpanzees", are an endangered<ref>[http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/cons PrimateInfo.Net]</ref> ape species in the genus ''Pan'' (the only other being the common chimp). Bonobos are more peaceful and social than the common chimpanzee. Bonobos share about 98% of their DNA with humans and slightly more than the common chimpanzee shares with humans.<ref name="Columbus Zoo">[http://www.colszoo.org/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html Bonobos] at the Columbus Zoo </ref> Unlike many other apes, they walk upright a signficant fraction of the time.

== Anatomy and Behavior ==
Females are smaller than males but unlike in many other ape species the female hierarchy of dominance matters more than that of the males. Bonobos pass the mirror test and have facial expressions close enough to those of humans such that humans can often recognize what emotion a bonobo is expressing. <ref name="Columbus Zoo"/> Individual bonobos also have very different facial features such that humans can easily differentiate one bonobo from another.

Proponents of evolutionary psychology often point to bonobos as examples of an evolutionary adaptation in which a species acquired the strategy of bartering sex to enhance social status or to resolve disputes<ref>[http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html Bonobo Sex and Society]</ref>. Homosexual activists haved cite bonobos as examples of animals who perform homosexual acts<ref> Chris Bull, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n735/ai_20164884 Monkey love - homosexual behavior in primates,] The Advocate, June 10, 1997.3</ref><ref>Steve Sailer, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1999_Sept_27/ai_55820853 "Chimps and Chumps : What monkeys don't tell us about man,"] National Review, Sept 27, 1999. </ref> . The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group which believes that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured argues the bonobo behavior is is not sexual but rather are aggressive acts to assert dominance much like when a dog mounts a person's leg<ref>
Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, [http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html "The Animal Homosexuality Myth,"] NARTH.</ref>.It is good to know NARTH has direct insight into the thoughts of Bonobos.

== References ==
<references/>

H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

2007-03-12T06:50:51Z

DavidB:

In January of 2007, after the [[Democrats]] won a landslide victory in the United States Congress, Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) introduced the Federal Hate Crime bill H.R. 254([http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.254:]) or the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. This law would bring a mandatory sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted or life, if "the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

These penalties come into effect if an "actual or perceived" threat occurs. Simply put, this creates a a special class of person that gets special rights and privileges.

Two powerful reasons that this bill is dangerous -

1) Someone who murders a gay person could get sentenced to life in prison while a person who murders a grandmother coming back from the store with cat food would serve less time. Although it is unlikely if you murdered a grandmother you would serve less than life in prison.

2) "Actual or percieved" leaves open the possibility that if a homosexual touched you on the shoulder in a sexaul way and you pushed him away roughly, you could spend ten years in prison. Clearly you should be able to push people around whenever you want without punishment.

This bill is seen by some conservatives a blatant attempt to normalize the homosexual lifestyle. Christian groups clearly believe the possibility of being beaten and killed is a handy disincentive to being gay, and the people who beat, abuse and kill should really not be punished so harshly for performing this community service.

Music

2007-03-12T06:39:41Z

DavidB: /* History */

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence. It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.

== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.'' This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first-ever musician was [[Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or angels. When he fell, so Scripture says, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}) Presumably Lamech, Adah and all their ancestors never sang a note in their lives.

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the [[Babel]] Incident.

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most highly specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician. {{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to musical theory influenced the classical artists for centuries to come, and still influence those composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. But beginning with the fall of Rome, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses in the primary hope of financial remuneration). The distinction is difficult to sustain, however, as many classical works were also produced on commission.<ref>For example, Haydn's symphonies nos.82-7 were produced on commission for a Paris concert organisation. http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/haydnj.html</ref> In the former category one can usually find music composed for these purposes:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# As entertainment while attending theatre, opera or ballet, usually for financial remuneration.
# To rally troops, either during training, on the march, or in battle.
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, in complete contrast, is usually used:

# As an aid to worship, such as in many modern church congregations, putting congregations in the mood to celebrate their faith.
# For entertainment, in movies, theatre, opera and ballet, usually for financial remuneration.
# To rally troops, such as at USO shows where popular American pop stars often perform.
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) makes plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) causes plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually kills plants.

As powerful as are the effects of music on plants, its effects on animals and man are far more profound. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). But the effects of music on human beings are far better documented and recognized. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The rock-and-roll selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]]. Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God. ({{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}) In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions. Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is to say, devoid of moral significance and always good and safe to listen to. The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to belie that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots. Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. The causes of the quarrels involved seem trifling in comparison to the damage that ultimately results--and riots like these do not normally occur at performances of other, "tamer" types of music.

== Related references ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation.
:* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]
:* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)
* Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707
* [http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]
* [http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]
* Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Music

2007-03-12T06:31:45Z

DavidB: /* History */

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence. It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.

== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.'' This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first-ever musician was [[Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or angels. When he fell, so Scripture says, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}) Presumably Lamech, Adah and all their ancestors never sang a note in their lives.

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the [[Babel]] Incident.

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most highly specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician. {{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to musical theory influenced the classical artists for centuries to come, and still influence those composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. But beginning with the fall of Rome, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses in the primary hope of financial remuneration). In the former category one can usually find music composed for these purposes:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# To rally troops, either during training, on the march, or in battle.
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, on the other hand, is almost always used:

# For entertainment, and more particularly for financial remuneration.
# As a powerful aid to [[propaganda]], especially when produced by church groups.
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) makes plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) causes plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually kills plants.

As powerful as are the effects of music on plants, its effects on animals and man are far more profound. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). But the effects of music on human beings are far better documented and recognized. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The rock-and-roll selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]]. Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God. ({{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}) In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions. Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is to say, devoid of moral significance and always good and safe to listen to. The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to belie that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots. Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. The causes of the quarrels involved seem trifling in comparison to the damage that ultimately results--and riots like these do not normally occur at performances of other, "tamer" types of music.

== Related references ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation.
:* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]
:* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)
* Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707
* [http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]
* [http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]
* Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Music

2007-03-12T06:28:52Z

DavidB: /* History */

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence. It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.

== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.'' This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first-ever musician was [[Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or angels. When he fell, so Scripture says, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}) Presumably Lamech, Adah and all their ancestors never sang a note in their lives.

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the [[Babel]] Incident.

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most highly specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician. {{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to musical theory influenced the classical artists for centuries to come, and still influence those composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. But beginning with the fall of Rome, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses in the primary hope of financial remuneration). In the former category one can usually find music composed for these purposes:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# To rally troops, either during training, on the march, or in battle.
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, on the other hand, is almost always used:

# For entertainment, and more particularly for financial remuneration.
# As a powerful aid to [[propaganda]].
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) makes plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) causes plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually kills plants.

As powerful as are the effects of music on plants, its effects on animals and man are far more profound. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). But the effects of music on human beings are far better documented and recognized. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The rock-and-roll selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]]. Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God. ({{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}) In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions. Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is to say, devoid of moral significance and always good and safe to listen to. The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to belie that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots. Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. The causes of the quarrels involved seem trifling in comparison to the damage that ultimately results--and riots like these do not normally occur at performances of other, "tamer" types of music.

== Related references ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation.
:* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]
:* [http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)
* Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707
* [http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]
* [http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]
* Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Gun Control

2007-03-12T06:26:04Z

DavidB: Showed increase in handgun crime in UK

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

The "right to keep and bear arms" is an individual right guaranteed in the American [[Bill of Rights]] although courts have frequently refused to protect this right from infringement.

Gun

2007-03-12T06:23:01Z

DavidB: Need for deterrent in USA

'''Guns''' are tools generally designed for firing bullets in a controlled manner. They have traditionally been used for two purposes: firing bullets at people, and threatening to fire bullets at people. Thus, a gun is considered a [[weapon]], though technically, the bullet is the weapon, unless the gun itself is used as a club, or as a spear if it has a [[bayonet]] attached.

There are many types of guns. Some guns fire small bullets. Some guns fire big bullets. Some guns fire ''very'' big bullets; these are generally called [[cannon]]s. Some guns fire a bunch of small bullets all at once; these are generally considered [[shotgun]]s. Some guns fire very fast, requiring only a single pull of the trigger; these are generally considered [[machine gun]]s. Some guns fire very slowly, requiring a full barrel cleaning and reloading before firing again. Most [[handgun]]s are semi-automatic, meaning that they fire a single round with a single pull of the trigger, and require reloading only after its built-in supply is depleted.

[[Science fiction]], such as [[Star Trek]], has postulated many different types of energy weapons. These are guns that fire beams, waves, or packets of energy. Some energy guns can be set to stun, not to wound or kill. A real-life applications of this is the [[taser]].

The cultural issues surrounding guns are many and widely debated. [[Conservative]]s generally prefer to reserve for the [[individualism|individual]] [[the right to self-defense]] through the use of guns. [[Liberal]]s generally prefer to delegate this [[right]] to various socialized guards and [[peacekeeper]]s, such as the [[city]] [[police]].

Law-abiding citizens carrying guns are statistically an effective deterrant and defense against lawless or criminal individuals. This has certainly been shown in the USA, which had 11,350 murders by shooting in 2005<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>, compared with 50 in 2005/06 in the UK, which restricts the possession of handguns.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref> [[Second Amendment|Guns are also a defense against a tyrannical government.]] Theoretically, if a person has the power to take the life of another, other people will not perpetrate criminal offenses against them. In practice, few existing civilian militias are strong enough to withstand a civil lockdown by a full army.

==See also==
[[Gun Control]]

Bible

2007-03-12T06:17:01Z

DavidB:

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
The '''Bible''' is the collection of canonical religious texts in Christianity.
Most Christians believe that the men and women who wrote and translated the Bible were under Divine Inspiration, and/or that the Bible is God's infallible Word to humanity.

The "canon" is the standard set of scriptural books which are deemed to represent the Word of God, as opposed to books which are considered wise or inspirational but not authoritative. The canon has evolved over time.

Some books counted as part of the Bible by the [[Roman Catholic Church]]—such as the books of ''Tobit'', ''Judith'', ''1st and 2nd Maccabees'', ''The Wisdom of Solomon (or Ecclesiasticus)'', and ''ben Sirach''—are regarded as non-canonical by Protestants. Some modern Protestant Bibles, following the example set by the original King James Version, include these books but categorize them as [[Apocrypha]]; most omit them. It is not clear whether they form part of the word of God or not.

The early church's determination of the [[canon]] was based on several criteria, including authorship, consistency with the rest of Scripture, and the level of general acceptance at the time. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html</ref>

Protestants value direct access to the Bible by worshipers, without the need for intervention or interpretation by clergy. The translation of the Bible into "common" languages such as German and English, and the development of printing by [[Johannes Gutenberg|Gutenberg]], were motivated by the Protestant desire to make the Bible accessible to everyone.

==Books of the Bible==

===The Old Testament===
The [[Old Testament]], or [[Hebrew Bible]] consists of 39 books. "Hebrew" in "[[Hebrew Bible]]" may refer to either the [[Hebrew language]] or to the [[Hebrew people]] who historically used Hebrew as a spoken language, and have continuously used the language in prayer and study, or both.
As used by the Jewish community, the word ''Tanakh'' describes the three parts of the Hebrew Bible: the [[Torah]] ("Teaching or Law"), and also known as the [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). The arrangment of the books in this way is common within the Jewish community; within the familiar Bibles of the English-speaking world the arrangement differs, however the actual writing of each book remains the same.

====Torah====
The books of the Torah are also known as the five books of Moses, thus [[Chumash]] or [[Pentateuch]] (Hebrew and Greek for "five," respectively):

*[[Genesis]]
*[[Exodus]]
*[[Leviticus]]
*[[Numbers]]
*[[Deuteronomy]]

The Torah focuses on three moments in the changing relationship between God and people.
*The first eleven chapters of Genesis provide accounts of the [[Creation]] of the world, the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]].
*The remaining thirty-nine chapters of Genesis provide an account of God's covenant with the Hebrew patriarchs, [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (also called [[Israel]]), and Jacob's children (the "[[Children of Israel]]"), especially [[Joseph]]. It tells of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home in the city of [[Ur]], eventually to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt.
*The remaining four books of the Torah tell the story of [[Moses]], who lived hundreds of years after the patriarchs. His story coincides with the story of the liberation of the Children of Israel from slavery in [[Ancient Egypt]], to the renewal of their covenant with God at [[Mount Sinai]], and their wanderings in the desert until a new generation would be ready to enter the land of Canaan. The Torah ends with the death of Moses.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]], or "Prophets," tells the story of the rise of the Hebrew monarchy, its division into two kingdoms, and the prophets who, in God's name, judged the kings and the Children of Israel. It ends with the conquest of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians and the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians, and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Portions of the prophetic books are read by Jews on the Sabbath ([[Shabbat]]). The [[Book of Jonah]] is read on [[Yom Kippur]]. According to Jewish tradition, Nevi'im is divided into eight books.

* I. [[Joshua]]
* II. [[Judges]]
* III. [[Books of Samuel]]
* IV. [[Books of Kings]]
* V. [[Isaiah]]
* VI. [[Jeremiah]]
* VII. [[Ezekiel]]
* VIII. [[The Minor Prophets]], which are a single book within the Nevi'im, and individual books in the Christian Bible:
**[[Hosea]]
** [[Joel]]
** [[Amos]]
** [[Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah]]
** [[Micah]]
** [[Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the stories of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the Babylonian exile. It ends with the Persian decree allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.

Ketuvim contains eleven books:
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]]
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], often divided into two books, [[Book of Ezra]] and [[Book of Nehemiah]]
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

According to Rabbinic tradition, many of the psalms in the book of [[Psalms]] are attributed to [[David]]; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written [[Song of Songs]] in his youth, the Proverbs in his prime, and Ecclesiastes during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written Lamentations at the start of the [[Babylonian Exile]]. The Book of Ruth is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moab]]ite) who married a Jew and, upon his death, followed in the ways of the Jews, ultimately becoming an ancestor of King David and Jesus Christ. Five of the books, called "The Five Scrolls" (Megilot), are read on Jewish holidays: Song of Songs on [[Passover]]; the Book of Ruth on [[Shavuot]]; Lamentations on the [[Ninth of Av]]; Ecclesiastes on [[Sukkot]]; and the Book of Esther on [[Purim]]. Esther is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God.

===The New Testament===
The Bible as used by the majority of [[Christians]] includes the Hebrew Bible in its part as the Old Testament together with the [[New Testament]], which relates the life and teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], the [[Epistles]], or letters, of the [[Apostle Paul]] and other disciples to the early church, and ending with the [[Book of Revelation]].

The [[New Testament]] is a collection of 27 books and letters, produced by the early Christian community, with [[Jesus]] as its central figure, written primarily in [[Koine Greek]]. Nearly all Christians recognize the New Testament as canonical. These books can be grouped into:

====[[The Gospels]]====
The Gospels contain the history of Jesus of Nazareth. The Acts of the Apostles are a continuence of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to the Christian community by the Apostle Paul.
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the last days prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

===The Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] are books which have been rejected as canonical by the Church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its version of the Bible, the [[Vulgate]]. The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*Additions to the Book of Esther
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]

==History of the Bible==

== Related articles ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Bible inerrancy]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]

===Bible texts===
* [http://biblia.hit.hu Online Bible]

====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible in many different versions, for [[MS Windows]].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm New World Translation] of the Holy Scriptures.
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/ LDS King James Version] with audio, extensive commentary and cross-references.
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Klingon====
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project].

====Others====
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations/languages, or lookup complete passages in up to five different translations/languages at once. Select from among NIV, NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, KJV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, ASV, NLV, NIrV and many others.
* [http://www.thebricktestament.com/index.html The Brick Testament] — Bible stories accurately rendered, illustrated in Lego(tm) blocks
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible aid that has a standard one year read through as well as the ability to design your own read through.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] provides free Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] from the original Hebrew and Koine Greek
* [http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm Aramaic New Testament resources]
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ] (long download)
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible] to see two versions side by side, any of NAS, ASV, ESV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, NRS, GNT, WEB, MSG, NIV, NIrV and many others.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible] provides resources on a verse by verse basis, such as commentaries, definitions, concordance with Hebrew/Greek, related information and parallel bible on the one selected verse in KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV and others.
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] for word proximity searches on the KJV bible.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi 2005 and Greek-Marathi wordbook by [[R H Kelkar]]
* [http://bible.palconit.com The Bible Collection] Collection of Sacred Books for Different Religions
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].

===Commentaries===
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — project of the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the books of the Bible. Includes the Tanakh and [[Rashi]]'s entire commentary.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

===Analysis===
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Usury

2007-03-12T06:15:07Z

DavidB: References

==In medieval times==

The medieval term for interest collected on loans of money.

[[Islam]] prohibits usury or interest on loans. So does the [[Bible]].

==In modern times==
'''Usury''' means charging an exorbitant, excessive, or illegally high rate of interest.

In the United States, most states have usury laws limiting interest rates. This area of law is complex, particularly since, during the period of high inflation in the 1970s, the Federal government passed a law exempting national banks from state usury laws.

In many states, such as New Jersey, the "legal rate of interest" is 6%, but this only applies to rare situations and certainly does not mean that home mortgages at higher rates, or credit card finance charges (often as high as 18%), are illegal.

Many Christians ignore the teachings of the Bible in regards to charging interest on loans.<ref>Deuteronomy 23:19-20</ref> This is an example of how some Christians disregard parts of the Bible because they believe they are no longer relevant to modern life.

==References==
<references/>

Liberal

2007-03-12T06:14:12Z

DavidB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Homosexuality

2007-03-10T07:28:50Z

DavidB: /* Homosexuality and Marriage */ Added more detail on Marriage Amendment

'''Homosexuality''' is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the [[Bible]] as an egregiously sinful act.

== Biblical Views on Homosexuality ==

Homosexuality is referred to four times in the Bible; it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and the only reference in the New Testament is in the letters of Paul.

All references in Amplified Version

=== Old Testament ===

* Leviticus 18:22 - ''You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.''
* Leviticus 20:13 - ''If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.''

=== New Testament (Epistles) ===

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
* Romans 1:26-27 - 26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27 and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

== Homosexuality in the Law ==

Treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] jurisprudence, with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden racial discrimination practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as [[Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>

The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a Texas law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. [[Justice Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the rule of law."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>

== Homosexuality and Marriage==

For many years, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. However, the organization de-listed homosexuality in 1973.[http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html] Since the late 1960s, many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, have advocated for recognition of gay civil rights and for equal protection of gay citizens under the law.

Legal marriage between same-sex couples is now recognized in Canada, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands, and in the US state of [[Massachusetts]]. Most other western European nations and several US states recognize a more limited "civil union". 26 US states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed anywhere. Some groups have pushed for a federal Constitutional amendment barring the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, however the amendment did not pass the Senate and was dropped due to lack of support.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html</ref>

==Homosexuality in Humans and Genetics and Environment==

Statistical studies give ample evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, although it is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal ''Science'' it is reported that, "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993). [http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp][http://www.freetobeme.com/r_biol.htm]

== Homosexuality in Nature ==
In some jurisdictions, some forms of sexual activity are referred to by the legal term "unnatural act," a term which originated in church canon law. Non-zoologists have sometimes made the incorrect inference that homosexual behavior does not occur in the zoological world and have used it as a talking point when attacking homosexuality. This has created an interest in the side issue whether homosexual behavior is or is not zoologically "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation."

Homosexual behavior is common.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html National Geographic] For example, every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling," cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation.

Sexual behavior between animals of the same sex is common. Some animals in which it occurs include:

* [[Bonobos]],<ref>Parker, Sue Taylor,Robert W. Mitchell, H. Lyn Miles (1999), ''The Mentalities of Gorillas and Orangutans: comparative perspectives.'' Cambridge University Press. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521580277&id=h4_VnW-HGAcC&pg=RA1-PA54&lpg=RA1-PA54&dq=bonobo+homosexual&sig=rdHH7YmjFiR7x5ONwt2e1EdfrBk p. 54]
</ref>
* [[Dolphins]]<ref>Smith, Dinitia (2004), "Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate," ''The New York Times,''
Saturday, February 7, 2004, as published on the San Francisco Chronicle website[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL]: "Bonobos are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex... 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual... male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild"</ref> and other vertebrate species. See also [[http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals livescience]]

A 1996 article, published by an organization commited to "treatment" of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth], Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book ''Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.''</ref> It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html]

==References==

*[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth] by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
*[http://creationwiki.org/Homosexuality CreationWiki: Homosexuality]

Kangaroo

2007-03-10T07:09:14Z

DavidB: /* Origins */ Noted that kangaroo fossils not found in Central Asia

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Gray Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They currently are native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four different sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[baramin]]: the Western Gray Kangaroo, the Eastern Gray Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong and powerful, designed by God for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivores]], eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Male kangaroos will go around the mob checking the females’ [[cloaca]]. Many times, males are rejected by the females because of size if they are small. In other cases, if a larger male is checking a female out, she may just move away. Sometimes, when a male is checking out a female, the female will urinate for the male, who will sniff the urine. Some studies show that this ritual is for the male to see if the female kangaroo is receptive to him or not.

If the female is responsive to the male, she raises her tail and the male will follow her. Sometimes the kangaroos will scratch each other’s tails or the male will give the female a back rub before mating. When the female is ready to mate she will arch her tail.

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weigh as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. They spend a lot of time in their mothers pouch developing. The Red Kangaroo joey will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Gray Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about a year.

==Origins==

According to the origins model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the [[Middle East]]<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[apobaramin | apobaraminic]] or [[polybaramin | polybaraminic]].

Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp "What about continental drift?"], Answers In Genesis</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/> However, kangaroo fossils have never been found in Central Asia (where the Ark ended up), only in the Americas, western Europe, Antarctica, and of course Australia.<ref>http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html</ref>

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the theory of evolutionists that kangaroos evolved from some sort of [[opossum]]-like ur-marsupial millions of years ago.

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

Liberal

2007-03-09T07:47:57Z

DavidB:

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

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

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

* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/home</ref>

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

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

==References==
<references/>

Massachusetts plan

2007-03-08T13:35:34Z

DavidB:

The Massachusetts plan is a health care law that requires residents of that state to either purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007, or pay a tax penalty. Massachusetts subsidizes the costs for those who cannot afford to purchase the health insurance. Massachusetts is in a better position than most states to pass this type of law because Massachusetts has a billion-dollar fund from tobacco settlements available to defray the costs, and also has fewer uninsured (10%) than the national average (18%). 46 million Americans do not own health insurance nationwide.

In 2007, these states are expected to try to pass similar laws: California, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico, and also the District of Columbia. In 2006 Vermont and Maine are pursuing similar laws already.

Some believe that this approach of the state requiring its residents to purchase a type of product is contrary to free enterprise. Many people choose "self-insurance" voluntarily, and forcing them to buy a product they do not want is both unusual and probably unhelpful to the economy. Even car insurance, which many people think is mandatory, has exemptions for self-insurance and sometimes religious belief in most states. Also, car insurance laws are justified to protect innocent third parties victimized by accidents, not to protect the owner of the insurance.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/schlafly.pdf</ref>

However, hospitals are required to treat individuals who visit the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. This is also contrary to free enterprise, however for the good of the community, the freedom of hospitals to turn sick people away is curtailed. If people must either buy insurance or pay a penalty, the financial incentive to not buy insurance is removed. This in turn relieves the burden of non-payers from hospitals, who can then use these funds to improve their health care and equipment.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1045.cfm</ref>

'''Sources:''' <references/>

Massachusetts plan

2007-03-08T13:35:06Z

DavidB: Clarified benefits of plan

Bill Clinton

2007-03-08T13:20:23Z

DavidB:

'''Bill Clinton''' (full name: William Jefferson Clinton) served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]]. His election is notable as he never won a majority of the popular vote, though he won more votes than any of his opponents, unlike his successor. He was impeached by the US Congress during his second term for lying to the American people. His term is also known for allowing a great increase in terrorism around the world, although he never took the United States to war.

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Bill Clinton]]

Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with President [[George H. W. Bush]]'s proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a popular third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton failed at his massive attempt to "reform" health-care in the United States by some sort of government-backed universal health-care insurance, which many conservatives felt would result in effective government control of the health care system. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee members and ultimately to defeat the program.

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a landslide victory to Republicans in Congress, where Republicans won 49.9% of the popular vote (compared to the Democrat's 44%). This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," in which Republicans promised America reforms including term limits, presidential line-item veto, and a balanced budget. That ended much of Clinton's power. He was reelected with 49.2% of the popular vote against a weak Republican candidate in 1996 ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]) and a weaker "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]]. The re-election of Clinton despite the demonstrated preference of the electorate in 1994 for Republican candidates may well be due to the electorate's preference for a [[divided government]], in which the executive branch and the congress are representative of different parties, unlike the elections in 2002 or 2004. Clinton spent the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor was named to investigate Clinton for allegations of impropriety in the Whitewater real-estate scandal, an investment of Clinton's in a failed real estate venture. Although nothing came out of this investigation, and it turned out that Clinton actually lost money on his investment, one of the results of the investigation was that the special prosecutor turned to investigating other Clinton activities, one of which (the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal) resulted in his impeachment. After a brief trial, the Senate acquitted all charges.

Under Clinton's presidency, the economy boomed, creating the largest ever budget surplus. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/</ref>

Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill [[Osama Bin Laden]] and [[Al Qaeda]], an action which was seen by some as an attempt to distract the nation from the [[Monica Lewinsky scandal]]. Some have also applied this criticism to his successor.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], has long sought to become president herself. She used her position of influence to obtain the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate without opposition in 2000, and was elected in this safely Democratic state. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

Most memorable quotes:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman.... Ms. Lewinsky." 
"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

Liberal

2007-03-08T13:14:51Z

DavidB: Added more liberal beliefs

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

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

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

* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* freedom of individuals from interference from governments
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* equal rights for black and white people
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/home</ref>

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

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

==References==
<references/>

Judicial Activism

2007-03-08T13:09:50Z

DavidB: Added detail to Brown vs Board of Education

There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:
 
1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values 
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values
 
The most famous example of this is [[Roe v. Wade]]. Other examples include Loving v Virginia<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html</ref> which stripped state control over marriage, putting it in the hands of the federal government; McCreary County v. ACLU in which judges stripped free speech and religious freedom from McCreary County <ref>Supreme Court of the United States[http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZS.html]</ref>; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court sided with terrorists over the protection of the United States of America. <ref>FOX News June 29; 2006[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201530,00.html]</ref> and Schiavo v. Schiavo, in which judges ordered the death of an innocent handicapped woman against the wishes of her parents and many pro-life supporters.<ref>http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/</ref>.

In Brown v Board of Education<ref>Deseret News, Aug. 22 2006[http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645195135,00.html]</ref>, activist judges stripped the power of the states to treat black Americans as second class citizens. Using the definition above, [[Liberal]] judges should not have struck down the ability to segregate whites and blacks, because racial discrimination is a core conservative American value.

<references/>

Civil Rights Movement

2007-03-08T12:55:46Z

DavidB:

The civil rights movement occurred in the United States from about 1953 to 1968, as courts and Congress changed laws to end segregation of African Americans in public places and make it easier for them to vote.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many courts order busing of children in a largely unsuccessful attempt to integrate public schools. Some busing from that era continues to the present.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a lobby group of [[liberal]] interests, fought for the basic civil rights of black Americans. Conservatives were opposed to granting equal rights for black and white Americans. Many conservatives, especially those in the South, still hold these views.

Civil Rights Movement

2007-03-08T12:53:18Z

DavidB: Conservative opposition

The civil rights movement occurred in the United States from about 1953 to 1968, as courts and Congress changed laws to end segregation of African Americans in public places and make it easier for them to vote.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many courts order busing of children in a largely unsuccessful attempt to integrate public schools. Some busing from that era continues to the present.

Conservatives were opposed to equal rights for black Americans. Many conservatives, especially those in the South, still hold these views.

Usury

2007-03-08T12:49:37Z

DavidB:

==In medieval times==

The medieval term for interest collected on loans of money.

[[Islam]] prohibits usury or interest on loans. So does the [[Bible]].

==In modern times==
'''Usury''' means charging an exorbitant, excessive, or illegally high rate of interest.

In the United States, most states have usury laws limiting interest rates. This area of law is complex, particularly since, during the period of high inflation in the 1970s, the Federal government passed a law exempting national banks from state usury laws.

In many states, such as New Jersey, the "legal rate of interest" is 6%, but this only applies to rare situations and certainly does not mean that home mortgages at higher rates, or credit card finance charges (often as high as 18%), are illegal.

Many Christians ignore the teachings of the Bible in regards to charging interest on loans.<ref>Deuteronomy 23:19-20</ref> This is an example of how parts of the Bible are no longer relevant to modern life.

==References==

Usury

2007-03-08T12:46:21Z

DavidB: /* In modern times */ Biblical reference

==In medieval times==

The medieval term for interest collected on loans of money.

[[Islam]] prohibits usury or interest on loans. So does the [[Bible]].

==In modern times==
'''Usury''' means charging an exorbitant, excessive, or illegally high rate of interest.

In the United States, most states have usury laws limiting interest rates. This area of law is complex, particularly since, during the period of high inflation in the 1970s, the Federal government passed a law exempting national banks from state usury laws.

In many states, such as New Jersey, the "legal rate of interest" is 6%, but this only applies to rare situations and certainly does not mean that home mortgages at higher rates, or credit card finance charges (often as high as 18%), are illegal.

Many Christians ignore the teachings of the Bible in regards to charging interest on loans. This is an example of how parts of the Bible are no longer relevant to modern life.

Ark

2007-03-08T12:36:58Z

DavidB: Redirecting to Noah's Ark

#REDIRECT [[Noah's Ark]]

User talk:DavidB

2007-03-08T12:33:26Z

DavidB:

Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"

2007-03-08T12:30:34Z

DavidB: Need for protection in America

''''''Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark''''''

The allocation and availability of firearms to Americans has caused numerous heated arguments, as guns are associated with the proliferation of illicit activities. However, this privilege was granted to us by our founding fathers during the formation of our country, via the Bill of Rights. The second amendment of this foundational document states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Is this entitlement, which was created a little over two centuries ago, obsolete and in need of reformation? A rescinding of this dispensation to American citizens by the government would be imprudent and unwarranted and would need to be met with the uppermost means of protestation. Citizens should be allowed to convey armaments because it is a betterment of their protection on several fields, should not suffer because these practical apparatuses are misunderstood by several politicians, and are useful and recreational if employed responsibly.

A superior means of defense for the population is the first reason why guns should be carried by citizens. Contrary to popular belief, armaments are not just purchased by lawbreakers; they are acquired by upstanding citizens whose only thought in the obtaining of the weapon is self-defense. A prohibiting of the distribution of firearms would cause the population to become more vulnerable to crime. Protection is sorely needed in America, which had 11,350 murders by shooting in 2005<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>, compared with 50 in 2005/06 in the UK, which restricts the possession of handguns.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref> Passing stricter laws on gun distribution (such as in the UK) would only cause more difficulty for law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves, as criminals use illicit means of obtaining firearms. Also, muggers, rapists, and murderers possessing the knowledge that the individual they are attempting to take advantage of owns a gun, are less likely to attempt the illegal action. As Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century Italian Criminologist stated, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” A secondary protection for the general public conveying arms is the safeguard against tyranny from a corrupt government. Because of its armed citizens the administration of the United States cannot enforce its laws upon the people by the use of the sword. If the actions desired by these politicians were taken, only the military would be armed, causing our democracy to become a dictatorship. This was the case in the formation of several totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Soviet Union. As United States Senator Hubert Humphrey correctly believed, “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which…historically has proven to always be possible.” In essence, the bearing of firearms establishes our freedom to have a voice in legislative decisions.

Second, the viewpoint of firearms in America has become bigoted and citizens wishing to arm themselves should not suffer because of this negative standpoint. A fact that many who support gun management fail to realize is that weapons themselves are not bad; it is their misuse that is corrupt. A generalization on all armaments should not be made just because a firearm previously purchased was utilized in a recent crime. As the cliche states, “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” Next, it appears that these activists believe that since guns pose a potential threat, we should have stricter laws in place. However, doesn't any object have the potential of becoming hazardous if utilized incorrectly? With that mindset, should not also we censure all household objects that could possibly cause injury, such as pencils, staplers, and little sisters? Also, many of the arguments made by pro-gun advocates are faulty and contain misinformation. For example, a primary claim made is that 13 children die per day because of handgun misuse. However, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the top child killer in America is the motor vehicle. Should we then abolish their use? Also, the claim made that the registration of guns would lead to fewer deaths is false because there are still accidents with licensed cars. Opposition to this point would be that we can’t compare guns to cars because only cars are useful. However, aren’t weapons useful to people for self-defense? In most cases, just the revealing of a firearm is enough to dissuade an assailant.

Lastly, guns can be employed recreationally if utilized properly and their use should not be repealed. Firearms are employed in several entertaining fields, such as hunting and target practice. Why should a few paranoid senators be able to repeal the leisure of many because of the mistaken decisions of a few? Also, if we allow stricter laws on armaments, pro-gun control activists could begin viewing other entertainments as “potentially dangerous” such as paintball and cap guns. This could lead to the squelching of more civil liberties such as the right to assemble, as it could cause the public to gain “dangerous mindsets” or the right to a trial by jury because the judge “knows what’s best for the plaintiff.” As the author Lyle Myhur said, “When they took the 4th Amendment I was quiet because I didn’t deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment I was quiet because I didn’t own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment and I can only be quiet.”

Citizens should be permitted to bear arms because they offer securities, the populace should not be subjected to the liberal standpoint on the gun control issue, and firearms can be used recreationally. Guns protect us not only from the common criminal, but from the creation of a tyrannical government. Armaments are viewed negatively and citizens should not be subjected to these faulty arguments. Finally, weapons are employed in several legal recreational activities. Therefore, we should defend our right to bear arms for the protection of ourselves and our basic liberties in this country.'''citation needed'''

George W. Bush

2007-03-08T12:12:36Z

DavidB: Added quote

{{stub}}
[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|200px|right|]]
George W. Bush (born 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the [[Republican]] [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. He won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks in the Supreme Court case ''Gore v. Bush''.

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of millions of votes, including a 300,000 vote (5%) victory<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some American [[liberals]] continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud.

In 2006, the Democratic Party narrowly won control of both Houses of Congress, leaving the final two years of the Bush Administration in a state of [[divided government]].

George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. As part of the fight against terrorism, he has instituted regime changes in the countries of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]]. On January 10, 2007, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable ... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me".<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/</ref> He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stableize the area.
George W. Bush is the son of president [[George H. W. Bush]], who served one term from 1989 to 1993.

==References==
<references/>

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-03-08T11:54:10Z

DavidB:

The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,''' informally known as the '''LDS Church''' or the '''Mormons, ''' was founded by [[Joseph Smith]] in 1830. It migrated from New York to Illinois to Utah where they have many members there and worldwide. The Mormons perform enormous amounts of missionary activity.

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

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

Between 1840 and 1890, [[polygamy]] was sanctioned and even encouraged by the LDS Church. It is forbidden by the Church today, however some LDS members still do not believe it to be inherently sinful.<ref>http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/love.shtml#polyg</ref>

==Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
Mormons are somewhat out of the mainstream of U. S. Christian denominations, because they accept the [[Book of Mormon]] as well as the [[New Testament]]. The Book of Mormon includes what Mormons regard as divine revelations made to [[Joseph Smith]].

Nevertheless, moderm Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

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

==References==
<references/>

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

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-03-08T11:53:35Z

DavidB:

The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,''' informally known as the '''LDS Church''' or the '''Mormons, ''' was founded by [[Joseph Smith]] in 1830. It migrated from New York to Illinois to Utah where they have many members there and worldwide. The Mormons perform enormous amounts of missionary activity.

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

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

Between 1840 and 1890, [[polygamy]] was sanctioned and even encouraged by the LDS Church. While it is forbidden today, however some LDS members still do not believe it to be sinful.<ref>http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/love.shtml#polyg</ref>

==Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
Mormons are somewhat out of the mainstream of U. S. Christian denominations, because they accept the [[Book of Mormon]] as well as the [[New Testament]]. The Book of Mormon includes what Mormons regard as divine revelations made to [[Joseph Smith]].

Nevertheless, moderm Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

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

==References==
<references/>

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

Noah's Ark

2007-03-08T11:44:57Z

DavidB: Clarified spread of animals from Ararat

According to the book of Genesis, The '''Ark''' or '''Noah's Ark''' was built by [[Noah]] on the directions of God so that His creation may be preserved following the [[Great Flood]].

The Ark was constructed with [[pitched]] [[gopher wood]] and had three stories divided into multiple rooms, a window, and a door.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:14, 6:16</ref> The dimensions were three hundred [[cubit | cubits]] long by fifty cubits wide by thirty cubits high.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref>

Noah was instructed by God to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:18-7:3</ref> <ref>''Genesis'' 7:6, 7:11</ref>, God shut them all inside the Ark and started the Flood.

Many Young Earth Creationists believe that the Flood occured serveral thousand years ago and created natural wonders of the world such as the Grand Canyon. Most scientists believe that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years.
After forty days and forty nights of rain, the Ark was adrift for 150 days until finally the waters subsided.<ref>''Genesis'' 7:24-8:1</ref>The Ark came to rest somewhere in the mountains of Ararat.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:4</ref>

It took another forty days until the waters decreased so that Noah was able to open the window and send forth a raven and a dove to see if the earth was dry enough to exit.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:14-16</ref> It is unclear how the animals came to spread to Australia, North America, South America, and South East Asia, which at the time were separated from Ararat by ocean.

==Controversy==
Many people, including some Christians do not believe that Noah's Ark existed and have raised objections to the existence of the Ark and the Flood such as a lack of room for all the animals and a lack of geological evidence for a global flood. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref><ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml A Critique of Rapid Post Flood Speciation] by [[Reasons to Believe]] an [[Old Earth Creationist]] ministry</ref>. Young Earth Creationists have written a number of responses to such criticims, such as John Woodmorappe "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" which argued that it would be possible to fit all of the required animals in the ark. <ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref> .

In 1977, Ron Wyatt thoroughly a site on Mount Ararat which he claimed was the remnants of Noah's Ark <ref>http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-04.htm</ref>. However, his findings have since come under criticsm from a variety of sources including mainstream archaeologists and other Young Earth Creationists prompting [[Answers in Genesis]], one of the world's largest creationist ministries, to make a general statement that Young Earth Creationists should not use Wyatt's claims since they were at best highly dubious.<ref>http://www2.andrews.edu/~merling/</ref><ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp</ref>

==References==
<references/>