Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Islam

2019-11-09T04:28:58Z

Dsherman:

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|Pages from the [[Koran]], the foundational text of the Islamic ideology, dictated by a single 7th century author who claimed to have been inspired by a supernatural being whom Muslims call 'Allah'. If the Constitution is the highest law of the United States, then the Koran is the highest law of Islam.]]
'''Islam''' is a major world [[Political|socio-political]] system<ref>[http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/100100/sec_id/100100 Why Islam is Not a Religion], by Rebecca Bynum (Nov. 2011) Speech delivered October 18th to ACT! for America Chapter in Memphis Tennessee</ref> based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]] (sometimes Mohammed), an evil seventh century [[Arab]]. Muhammad claimed descent from [[Ishmael]], the son of [[Abraham]]. Muhammad claimed to have received revelations from Allah, the entity which adherents of Islam claim to resemble the [[God]] of [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], via the archangel Gabriel, which were written in the [[Koran]] – thus forming the core teachings of Islam. Adherents of Islam, along with their liberal allies (including in the [[mainstream media]]), claim it to be pure religion untarnished by any political agenda. However, unlike Christianity, Judaism and other religions, Islam is presented and acts in ways opposite to the teachings of legitimate religions, and it is more akin to the totalitarian ideologies of [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]], based on the history of Islam and its followers.

The Koran's singular authorship offers no corroborating evidence, as the four Gospels do for example, of testimony of independent eyewitness accounts to its claim of divine inspiration as the Mosaic Law requires,<ref>Dueteronomy 19:15 ''By the testimony of two is a matter established''. The testimony of one - Mohammad - is insufficient to convict the human race, or infidels, of sin, ''per the Law of Moses'' or the Koran itself which claims descent.</ref> from which the Koran's author borrowed selectively.

==Overview==
[[File:World Muslim Population Pew Forum.png|thumb|The Muslim population of the world map according to the Pew Forum 2009 report.]]
The word "Islam"<ref>Arabic الإسلام‎‎, specifically referring to submission to Allah</ref> means "submission" or "surrender" in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. Islam, as originally designed in the Koran, presents itself as an "Abrahamic faith" and has [[Moses]] in it,<ref>Brannon Wheeler. Moses in the Koran and Islamic Exegesis. Routledge, 2002.</ref> as well as [[Jesus]] as a prophet in Islam,<ref>Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim, Ahmad Thomson. ''Jesus: Prophet of Islam''. TTQ, INC., 2003.</ref> and it specifically denies Jesus's divine nature.

<blockquote>
The world’s Islamic population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. In the United States, for example, the population projections show the number of Muslims more than doubling over the next two decades, rising from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030.<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/ The Future of the Global Muslim Population.]</ref>
</blockquote>

Islam has been criticized for some time because of its demanding of strict submissiveness (especially of women), its suppression and violations of human rights (also including those of women), and its predisposition to being violent toward those of true religious faiths and attacking those faiths deemed a threat to Islam. There have been over 23,000 terrorist attacks committed by adherents of Islam since [[September 11, 2001 attacks|the Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001]].<ref>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/</ref> A more recent strain of Islam has combined European totalitarianism and a virulent [[anti-Semitism]]. This version is called [[Jihadism#Lesser jihad|lesser jihad]], [[Islamism]], radical Islam, or militant Islam. Without the historic institution of the Caliph, this form degenerates into stateless terrorist activity that strikes at the heart of civilized man. Some who identify as Muslim have denounced the violent jihadism while others remain silent. Some Muslims and non-Muslims theorize that mainstream Islam has become corrupted over the years that there needs to be an [[Islamic Reformation]] similar to that of the [[Protestant Reformation]].<ref>Michaelle Browers, Charles Kurzman. An Islamic Reformation? Lexington Books, 2004.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism|title=Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism|author=Daniel Pipes|date=June 30, 1998}}</ref> The Reformation movements were costly and bloody for well over a century.
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|left|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]
There are small groups of largely Westernized Muslims who publicly reject Islamism. Such moderate Muslim conservatives are in the [[Republican Party]], known as the [[Muslim Republicans]].<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref> One of America's Founding Fathers, [[Thomas Jefferson]], who was a religious [[libertarian]], declared: "''freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination''."<ref>John A. Garraty, Story of America Beginnings to 1877, (1992) Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pg 706.</ref>

Issues with Islam arose in the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign. Republican presidential candidate [[Mitt Romney]] said that "''Radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world.''" and that "''they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.''" Romney said that when he lived in Detroit he knew Muslims, as Detroit has a large Muslim population, and says "''They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.''<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref> Former Republican presidential nominee candidate [[Ron Paul]], a libertarian conservative, says that America should not fear Islam and said that America should just embrace people of all faiths.<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref> American conservative author Margaret Hoover believes that the Republican Party needs to recognize Muslim Republicans, noting an example of Muslim Republican youth Suhail Khan who she describes as "''one of thousands of Muslim Americans who work to promote Christian-Muslim understanding''".<ref>Margaret Hoover, ''American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party'', Random House Digital, Inc., 2011, pg 202.</ref> Candidates for the Republican nomination like [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Rick Santorum]] strongly criticized Islamic extremism.<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref>

[[Multiculturalism|Multiculturalists]] ignore or minimize violence in the history of Islam and exaggerate Christian atrocities to advance a [[moral equivalence]]. Proponents of this view often cite the [[Crusades|Great Crusades]]--an unsuccessful attempt by Western Christians to retake parts of the [[Byzantine Empire]] that had been conquered by Islamic armies--and various religious wars which were later fought in Europe between branches of Christianity. However, they brand critics of Islam "racists" (even though Islam is not a "race") and "[[Islamophobia|Islamophobes]]" (a smear term invented for the purpose of censoring and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam) for exposing today's threats by [[jihadism|jihadists]].<ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/charity.html</ref>

A follower of Islam is called a "[[Muslim]]" (rarely "Moslem"), a term which means "one who submits (to Allah)." The older terms "Mohammedan" and "Muhammedan" ("follower of Muhammad"), have fallen out of use.<ref>Additional archaic terms for Muslims include "Hagarene", "Musselman", and "Saracen." Saracen as a term for Muslims was limited to the Crusades era, although it makes frequent re-appearances in pre-modern polemics. Hagarene was a more common term in pre-modern works, as it denotes the Biblical connection of Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, who is claimed to be a patriarch of Islam. Additional names for Muslims in pre-modern and Medieval works are generally derived from misspellings.</ref>

Because of its history of terrorism, mass murder, suicide attacks and the overall lack of value it places on human life, Islam, and those who adhere to it, are generally shown as having no regard whatsoever toward human life.<ref>[https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2017/07/09/human/permanent-rage-islam/ The Permanent Rage of Islam] at Conservative News and Views</ref>

==Theology==
[[File:Kaaba.jpg|thumb|Masjid al-Haram, the holiest site in Islam.]]

There are no clergy, but there are religious teachers, or [[Imam]]s, who have their followings. All Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, whom they believe to be Allah's<ref>Arabic الله</ref> last and greatest [[prophet]] (although Jesus, in Matthew 7:15-20, warned "Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit", which serves to explicitly describe Muhammad and such like him). The teachings of Muhammad are transmitted through the [[Koran]], the Hadith, and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a general term for "the life and doings of the Prophet", which all Muslims are called on to replicate. Islam claims that the Archangel [[Gabriel]] appeared to Muhammad in a cave reciting verbatim a revelation from Allah. The first word that Gabriel says to Muhammad is "Iqra" or "Recite/Proclaim",which is found in the 96th Sura of the Koran.

Muslims believe that Allah revealed the Koran to Muhammad. The key miracle of Islam comes from the historical condition of the illiterate and uneducated Muhammad, as the Koran is composed in an erudite and complex form of Arabic prose and poetry.<ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref> The Koran was not written down in a systematic fashion until a decade after Muhammad died, preferable transmission being through oral recitation. The Koran is claimed by Muslims to be the pure and holy word of Allah, uncreated and eternal. In Islamic belief the term uncreated is very important, as it implies that there is no author for the Koran, only the delivering of the word to Muhammad who delivered it to the Sahab and the Salaf (The Companions and the Pure), who delivered it to the scribe delegated to record it in the reign of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan.

Islam teaches fundamental contradictions about the nature of Allah. Allah is said to be all powerful, yet impotent to have a son (Surah 6:100-101). The idea of Allah having offspring is mocked,<ref>"Limitless is He is His glory, and sublimely exalted above anything that men may devise by way of definition: the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him - since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything?" - Surah 6:100-101.</ref> and this limitation of his power differentiates Allah from the Christian God. Allah is a very angry god who loves only those who swear allegiance to him, and hates non-believers. To serve Allah is to hate Allah's enemies with the same divine hatred that Allah hates non-believers (Surah 5:54). This stands in direct contrast to John 3:16.

==Origins==
Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam originated in the Middle East. Islam claims to trace its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather they claim that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets that followed as recorded in the lost books of the Tawrat and Injil.

Based upon this belief, the [[Bible]], both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s, is claimed by adherents of Islam to have become corrupted through the [[Bible translations|translations and misinterpretations]] accumulated over several millennia. The criticism of the [[Torah]] centers around the reconstruction of the existing Biblical text required after the "[[Babylon]]ian captivity". The criticism of the New Testament centers in the many disputed gnostic texts which contradict the orthodox biblical canon. Interestingly, Islamic jurisprudence accepts that the Injil was complete and whole up until the revelation of Muhammad. Therefore, there is some inconsistency in the claims made against the New Testament. For more information, see [[The Bible versus the Qur'an|The Bible versus the Koran]].

Muhammad spent many years attempting to unite disparate polytheistic Arab tribes in the power vacuum created by the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] through recitations of his epic poem, which borrowed heavily from Hebrew scriptures and dietary laws, meeting with only limited success. He was eventually driven out of Mecca by the powers that be for challenging state authority, an event known as the ''Hijra'' or "Flight from Mecca" which marks the beginning of the Islamic calender.

Eventually Muhammad was summoned back to Mecca by a faction of sympathizers, mainly tribal family members, as political chaos engulfed the city. Muhammad conqueered the city after a prolonged siege with attacks on the civilian population and hundreds of beheadings to any who refused to accept his claims to a divine mission of carrying out the will of Allah. The doctrine of abrogation (''nashk'') in Islamic scholarship teaches that the later instructions of Mohammad supersede any earlier contradictory verses in the Koran.<ref>http://www.quranicstudies.com/books/abrogation-in-the-quran-and-islamic-law/</ref> Hence was born political Islam,<ref>https://www.politicalislam.com/abrogation-and-the-koran/</ref> a doctrine of war, conquest, and vengeance, over any earlier utterances which teach Islam a religion of peace. Peace only exists in Islam insofar as all Islam's enemies are subjugated.

==Today==
Islam is the world's largest socio-political ideology, with over 1.6 billion followers, and is claimed to be the fastest growing ideology in America.<ref>[http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-fastest-growing-religion-in-america-is-islam]</ref> This rapid growth is mainly due to conversions, high birth rates, and convenient redefinitions of the term "Muslim". Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but are keeping up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

Islamic doctrine, including what is taught in [[North America]], teaches that 1 John 4:9, "God is love", is a false doctrine.<ref>http://www.arabicbible.com/for-christians/1313-christians-common-questions-about-islam.html?start=2</ref> The doctrine of ''Al-Wala wal-Bara'' teaches true faith is measured in sharing Allah's hatred of the ''kufr'', non-believers, or infidels.<ref>http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim</ref> In other words, Islamic doctrine teaches that Allah hates his own creation, sinful man, which John 3:16 teaches, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son." ''Al-Wala wal-Bara'', or divine hatred, is used to justify terrorist attacks. The believing Muslim feels he is carrying out Allah's will in killing Allah's enemies. Rather than the [[atonement|atoning]] blood of Jesus for sinful man, the murder of infidels and attacks on their societal institutions and national governments is aimed at blotting out evil in the world.

Even Orthodox Judaism teaches that Jehovah loves sinners. Psalm 138:8 for example says, "The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands."

[[Indonesia]] has the largest Islamic population in the world.

==Historical Background==
According to Islamic belief, in approximately 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], located in the Hijaz (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] (or Jibreel) to "recite" the message of Allah (professed by adherents of Islam to be their god). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgment day.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|right|thumb|Map of the expansion of Islam]]
The message to Muhammad was to be Allah's last and fullest revelation, a direct copy of the Umm Al Khitab, the mother of all books located in heaven next to Allah; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or the city – as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Islamic lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Muhammad's forces, composed of the sahaba (companions) from Mecca, and the Ansar (allied tribes from Yathrib) started attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632.

Tribal elders in a traditional council called the "Shura" elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten-year reign, Islam invaded and spread through conquest and negotiation into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of Persia (modern-day [[Iran]]). Umar was assassinated by a Persian in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Persia, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

The Muslim armies conquered and superseded the ancient Sassanid and Byzantine empires which had ruled before. Within a generation of Muhammad's death Islamic armies occupied an empire stretching from the Nile river to the far-off Persian province of Khorasan. Reasons for the rapid conquest are varied and obscure. The Arab armies were more akin to tribal war bands raiding and settling where and when they could. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been at war for centuries. The constant simmering conflict between Constantinople and Persia reached a climax in the early 7th century. The Sassanids conquered briefly Egypt and the Levant threatening the central Byzantine heartland of Anatolia. Under the military reforms of the emperor Heraclius, the Byzantine army consolidated and counterattacked, recapturing all that they had lost and capturing the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon in 628.

This brief end of the Roman-Persian wars disrupted the frontier areas which had predicated their economies on raiding and mercenary activities. Two major areas in Arabia were directly affected. The Lackmid tribe and the Gassanid tribe both acted as mercenaries for the Persians and Romans. The official religion of both tribes analogically mirrored that of their overseers. Monophysite Christianity was common, particularly of the Jacobite sect. The death of Muhammad and the subsequent Ridda wars occupied these warrior tribes until the reign of Caliph Umar. Additionally, there was great religious unrest in the Levant and Egypt. These areas resented the ruinous taxes and the harsh orthodoxy imposed by the emperor in Constantinople.

The same climate was present in the Sassanid realm with the rise of the dualism of the Manicheans. Under the Caliph Umar, the Arab tribes which had concluded the infighting following the death of Muhammad were allowed to raid into the Byzantine and Sassanid fronteirs. The weakened state of both regimes from both military and economic exhaustion and religious unrest made them fertile picking grounds for the tribal warbands. The Arabs were chiefly successful in holding these areas in that they upheld a lightweight regime of low taxes based in the Islamic laws and distant government. Rather than employing an army of bureaucrats and nobility, the early Arab empire was more favorable towards maintaining the existing government structures under the leadership of Arab tribes. In this atmosphere it is hardly surprising to note the reports from both Islamic and Christian sources of peaceful capitulation and invitation of the invading forces.

[[File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg|center|800px|thumb|Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in [[Medina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the site of [[Muhammad|Muhammad's]] tomb.]]

=== Islam and war ===

''See also:'' [[Irreligion/religion and war]] and [[Islamic terrorism]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]]

In his book ''The Irrational [[Atheism|Atheist]]'', [[Vox Day]] wrote:
{{Cquote|It’s also interesting to note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations, which is rather more than might be statistically expected considering that the first war in which Islam was involved took place almost three millennia after the first war chronicled in the ''Encyclopedia'', Akkad’s conquest of Sumer in 2325 B.C.

In light of this evidence, the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of
conflict around the globe cannot reasonably be used to indict all religious faith, especially when one
considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious
faiths combined only account for 3.35 percent of humanity’s wars.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist - Abbreviated free copy on PDF]</ref>}}

==Divisions within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, dissidents who broke away from the main body of Islam because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Islamic community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name possibly derived from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. One of the most famous modern followers of Sufism was American professional boxer [[Muhammad Ali]] in his later years. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Islamic Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Koran as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from Allah.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Koran that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Koran is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Koran as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Islamic countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Koran and able to offer commentaries on Koranic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Koran or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of Allah, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Koran, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''[[Shahadah]] (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except Allah, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of Allah''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam and swears off the divinity of Christ.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]]. Praying six times a day is consider willful disobedience to Allah, ''per shariah law'', an act punishible by death.<ref>The example is used by Prof. Quinten Wiktorowitz of an extremist considered by Muslim "moderates" as one who loves Allah so much he defies Allah's instructions. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100500497004</ref><ref>[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_Movement.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiXlY7EttfTAhVF02MKHRExBFwQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNH4tKyamYaRwVVY8j23A0VjTOOWJg&sig2=zIzwl9aecd3zpGkLsveV0g "Despite the success of the Prophet’s mission and the growth of Islam, Salafis believe human desires continue to grip Muslims and challenge the purity of the message. In this view, there is an eternal temptation to manipulate and distort the religion through innovation. Although nefarious interests often drive deviancy, it can also result from good intentions. Muslims who pray more than the explicitly proscribed five times a day, for example, are likely motivated by love for God. They are, however, still engaged in innovation because they are inventing new practices to fulfill a human desire." p.4 pdf]</ref>

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Zakat is often described as charitable giving. Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of [[net worth]] held for a full [[lunar year]]. However, funding violent jihad by wealthy Muslims has been ruled a form of ''zakat'' by Islamic scholars, a requirement to fillful their Islamic duty under the five pilars. There exists the poor, unemployed, and unemployable jihadis, and the ignorant (''jahiliyya'') infidel masses in need if Islamic enlightening, hence funding terrorism is considered charitable work.

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must not eat during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Although Muslims and their mainstream media surrogates refer to it as a "fast," this in no way aligns with traditional Christian and Judaic concepts of fasting, and indeed violates the basic concept. Torturing oneself in an outward display of [[piety]] is deemed [[hypocritc]]al by the [[monotheist]]ic traditions of Christianity and Judaism. Some Islamic sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives. Many without funds for a round trip never made it back, having been sold off in the slave auction market place a [[Taif]].<ref>https://youtu.be/emRVkisdbhc</ref>

==Other Aspects of Islam==
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "struggle" each Muslim is called to against unbelievers (infidels). Participation in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims, and is the same reason for Islamic terrorism and war today. 
Some Muslim apologists in the western world say that jihad refers to the difficulties a Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. It is, they say, the internal struggle of good and evil, or the pure and the impure. However, this is simply a fabrication, which has been publicly labeled as such by Muslim scholars in the middle east. Nonetheless, even some mosques not teach this, fostering a more peaceful version of Islam. Unfortunately, it is not based on the Koran and the Hadith, but rather modern revisions. Any Muslim believing this peaceful version can be corrected based on these sacred books, and thus become "radicalized."

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of [[Wahhabism]], stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers claim that the number of Islamic fundamentalists is growing and poses a threat to the West.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.danielpipes.org/255/islamic-fundamentalists-are-the-new-big-threat-to-the-west|title=Islamic Fundamentalists are the New Big Threat to the West|author=Daniel Pipes|newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer|date=Sept 16, 1994}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html|title=All or Nothing: The quest for a moderate Islam may be futile.|date=June 4, 2006|author=Theodore Dalrymple|newspaper=Cite Journal}}</ref> But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow murderers such as bin Laden or other terrorists.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/09/15/who_speaks_for_islam/page/full/|title=Who Speaks For Islam|author=Dinesh D'Souza|newspaper=Townhall|date=Sept 15, 2009}}</ref> In several major Islamic nations, bin Laden had the support of the majority of people in the early years after the 9/11 attacks. As he lost battles with the West and started to target fellow Muslims his popularity waned.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/04/30/on-anniversary-of-bin-ladens-death-little-backing-of-al-qaeda/|title=On Anniversary of bin Laden’s Death, Little Backing of al Qaeda|date=April 30, 2012|publisher=Pew Research Center}}</ref>

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Koran and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, which claims roots tracing back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of Allah's promise. Islam claims that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Koran (though in truth, it is the Koran itself which plagiarized from and corrupted Biblical scripture), but there is still an earlier link claimed between the two religions and Islam. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Koran and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
[[File:Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque Jakarta Indonesia.jpg|left|thumb|240px|Muslim girls at Istiqlal [[Mosque]], Jakarta.]]
In pre-Islamic times women's rights were defined by tribal laws which differed among the tribes. Some women had absolute equity and the ability to hold power, while some women were treated worse than chattel; bride prices, unlimited polygamy, and female infanticide were a common theme. [[Sharia law|Islamic law]] offered a path for which Muslim men could regulate women in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence on the Arabian peninsula. Treated merely as individual sex objects, women were granted very limited rights but as distinct legal individuals; forced to marry who their parents tell them to, women are required not to directly object in order for the marriage contract to have some form of validity.

Unlike the pre-Islamic times where unlimited polygamy occurred, [[Sharia law]] limits [[polygamy]] to a maximum of four wives at any one time, though the use of "temporary" marriage in effect rendered this restriction meaningless. Once married, only men are entitled to divorce any time they please. The reality of traditional Sharia law as applied in the modern era has shocked the modern conscience.<ref>Linda Rae Bennett, ''Women, Islam and Modernity'' (2005)</ref> These restrictions on women were put into place over a thousand years ago, and there has been little progress since. Women are still not allowed to drive a [[car]], they cannot ride [[bicycle]]s, are unable to [[vote]], have been prohibited from traveling abroad without permission, and they can't use public facilities when men are present.

[[File:Sharia.jpg|right|thumb|220px|Muslim woman tortured under Sharia law.]]
Women in Islam are treated as inferiors to men in almost every regard and women's rights are all but non-existent in Islam, a fact conveniently ignored by the ideology's liberal allies (including in [[feminism]] and the [[mainstream media]]). In [[Sharia]], the testimony of one man equals that of five women. Women are required to cover the head and body in public, by wearing the hijab. Hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and western street clothes may be acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[burqa]] was enforced in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. As of 2008, [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], and [[Pakistan]] are the most significant Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of restrictive garb, though cultural pressure in most Islamic countries offers women little choice but to submit to the dictat of hijab. Women who are claimed by their husbands or family to have disgraced their family are put to death in "[[honor killing]]s"; buried halfway or sometimes up to their neck so they cannot run, women, who are in most cases victims, are stoned to death.

=====Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education=====
Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit – should a man die, his brothers, sons, and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of Sharia law and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions but to a lesser extent. In contrast, [[Turkey]] has a majority Muslim population and yet grants women some rights similar to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Islamic apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, though these are the countries where traditional Islam is strongest. They point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and women's rights are compatible, ignoring the efforts of traditionalists in Turkey to end the few freedoms women were granted by men.

Islamic women's status is controversial. While Islamic men control and oppress Islamic women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities, Islamic apologists defend some practices. These men claim that many of the restrictions on women, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect women from predatory men. Unfortunately, such Islamic men ignore the fact that if a predatory man or group of rapists were to sexually assault an Islamic woman in Islam, she would be punished under Sharia law for "allowing" such an act to occur, and she would likely receive hundreds of lashes and years of jail time or be punished with death; the predatory man or men commonly go unpunished or only receive very light punishments at worst.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was claimed by Islam to be its holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the [[Dome of the Rock]] mosque. According to the Koran (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Abortion====
Muslims see [[abortion]] as ''haram'' (forbidden), but accept it if the life of mother is at risk.<ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml</ref>

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims can have dogs for safety. Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and from collecting interest on financial transactions.

===Female Genital Mutilation===
Female genital mutilation (also known as "female circumcision") is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" condition for a woman, and act to carry out. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, though not in Coptic Egypt as some Islamic apologists claim. Female genital mutilation is not called for nor is it supported by the Koran.

===Honor Killings===
Another violent practice continued in Islamic countries is [[honor killing]], in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that "dishonored" the family through supposedly "promiscuous" behavior. This "promiscuous" activity often includes women from Islamic societies living in the West aspiring to a more open lifestyle. The "honor killing" is more ancient, and pagan in origin, but tolerated and practiced more or less openly in some Islamic societies.

Some apologists might try to excuse or justify this practice by putting down this verse:

<blockquote>
'Because of that, We decreed...that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.' -5:32. [http://quran.com/5/32].
</blockquote>

Notice the ellipses between decreed and that? I hope you did, and if you followed the link you would know that this was decreed to the Children of Israel, who would be the Jews. Now, how could this be a defense against honor killing in Islamic countries if this wasn't even given to Muslims? The answer lies in the very next verse:

<blockquote>
'Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.' (5:33-34) [http://quran.com/5/33] [http://quran.com/5/34]
</blockquote>

So what we get from that, unlike the Jews where it is a blessing not to commit murder, for Muslims, it is a deed for Allah to murder those who have "caused corruption". Among these that "cause corruption" could be one's daughter, sister, or wife who is not wearing the headscarf, praying five times a day, not fasting in Ramadan, becoming too Westernized, etc., and thus honor killing would be "justified" in their view. Of course if you look at the next verse, it says that you should be merciful to those who have repented -before you apprehend them. This implies that they will be terrorized, and then there self-preservation instinct will kick in and they will repent. But what about those who don't? What if one's female relative doesn't believe that the headscarf is necessary while you do? And what if she still believes the same way after you apprehend her? You follow 5:33. As Muhammed himself proclaimed:

<blockquote>
I have been made victorious with terror.'
-Bukhari 4.52.220 [http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/004.052.220.html].
</blockquote>

==Anti-Science==
Modern science started in Christian Europe, not the Islamic world, and not even China. The Islamic world has not accomplished anything major in the sciences, unless copying counts. The Muslims borrowed their architecture from the Byzantines. For example, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was built and designed by Byzantine craftsmen. Thousands of years before Muhammad was born, the Greeks discovered algebra and the Persians built the first astrolabe. Before Al-Ahzar University was established, there were two universities in China (Nanking University and Southeast University), the School of Nisibis (later absorbed into the School of Edessa), a school of medicine and theology built by the Syriac Orthodox Church in Mesopotamia, but in present-day Turkey, the University of Constantinople, Nalanda in India, and the Academy of Gondishapur in Iran; the first hospital was built by the heretical Nestorians.

==Islam and Christianity==
''See also: [[Dhimma]]'' 
While adherents of Islam do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the Resurrection, they consider Him and His mother to be among Allah's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Koran warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Koran states that non-believers will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified (same as similar statements in the Bible and the Torah):

{{cquote|Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."
}}
::(Koran 5:73-75)

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Uzbekistan]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]], amongst others]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Koran; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of Allah by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Most Islamic scholars regard Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established during the early stages of the Islamic Empire, though a few scholars also believe contemporary legal cases can and should shape the law, though such thinkers may be subject to ridicule and even threats from Islamists and their liberal allies.

Sharia law proscribes often brutal punishments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, turning away from Islam is punishable by death,<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref> while women found guilty of adultery is punishable by stoning to death, which often includes many rape victims, as Sharia courts often regard a rape victim as guilty of adultery unless she can provide four witnesses to the act of rape.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm</ref> In cases involving the death penalty of corporal punishment, methods of carrying out the punishment are often barbaric, and include public beheading, chopping off of the hand, and flogging.<ref>http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/</ref> Many Islamic groups have been attempting to have Shariah courts set up in European countries, initially to rule over civil cases between Muslims in Europe.<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html</ref>

The need by Islam's adherents to add to and retain followers in its ideology through Sharia, deceit, force and intimidation, particularly through threats of death against those who leave Islam or who levy legitimate criticism against it for its barbaric ways and history, would indicate that overall, Islam is a weak ideology that would not withstand criticism or exposure of the truth of its ways and history. To facilitate retaining its membership and to keep the truth about Islam under wraps, its adherents have formed convenient alliances with sympathetic liberals in politics, academia, the courts, the mainstream media and Hollywood to deceive the public about Islam and what it really is, as well as to censor and silence critics of Islam through ridicule, false accusations of "racism", "hate speech" and "Islamophobia" and the illegal use of the legal system to punish critics.<ref>[http://nationalpost.com/news/weaponization-of-free-speech-prompts-talk-of-a-new-hate-law?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29 "Weaponization" of free speech prompts talk of a new hate law] at the ''National Post''</ref>

== Violent passages of the Koran championed by Islam ==
In its passages, the Koran has advocated adherents of Islam to commit acts of violence, hatred and insurrection against those who do not follow that ideology (in particular, Jews and Christians) or are critical of it, to subjugate Judaism, Christianity and other religions to Islam and to force the followers of legitimate religions to submit and adhere to Islam.<ref>[https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx What Does Islam Teach About Violence]</ref><ref>[https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/hell-and-hate.aspx What Does Islam Teach About Hell and Hate]</ref> Not surprisingly, attempts at pointing out the violence advocated by the Koran have been met with denials and excuses by Islamic apologists, who engage in [[taqiyya]] by claiming that the critics of the violent passages took those passages "out of context" and that "critics only quote the part which (suits) them" while the apologists do exactly what they accuse the critics of doing.<ref>[https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/08/12/quran-2191-and-kill-them-wherever-you-find-them-explained/ Quran 2:191- ‘And kill them wherever you find them…’ Explained] - an attempt by Islamic apologists to excuse violent passages of the Koran by offering deceitful explanations of what they claim those passages "really mean"</ref><ref>[http://islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm The Holy Quran, verse 8:12], from another Islamic apologist site which excuses the violent passages of the Koran and attacks its critics by claiming "Some non-Muslims either through ignorance or Islam-bashing continue taking the verses of the Holy Quran out of context and its history to justify their false propaganda"</ref><ref>[https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/discover-truth/verses/47-4.aspx "Discover the Truth's" Game] - a refutation of the claims and excuses made by the Islamic apologist site Discover the Truth regarding Koran 47:4</ref><ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/01/jihad_quran_9123_v_matthew_103.html Jihad: Quran 9:123 v. Matthew 10:34] at American Thinker</ref><ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_quotes_verse_532_omits_5.html Obama quotes (Koran) verse 5:32, omits 5:33] at American Thinker</ref> Among the more violent and hateful passages of the Koran are these:

*Koran 2:191 - “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
*Koran 9:123 - “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”
*Koran 9:5 - “When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you catch them.”
*Koran 3:85 - “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.”
*Koran 9:30 - “The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”
*Koran 5:33 - “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
*Koran 9:28 - “The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.”
*Koran 22:19 - “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.”
*Koran 47:4 - “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.”
*Koran 8:65 - “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.”
*Koran 3:28 - “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.”
*Koran 8:12 - “Terrorize and behead those who disbelieve (in Allah).”
*Koran 8:60 - “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.”

==Terminology==
Additional archaic terms for Muslims include, but are not limited to, "Hagarene" and "Saracen." The term Hagarene was more common in post-crusade Europe as it made specific reference to the Biblical mother of Ishmael. In Islam, Ishmael plays an analogous theological role to Isaac. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]].<ref>Schimmel, (1992)</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of [[Ex-Muslims]] hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations."<ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref> Ex-Muslims include Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark A. Gabriel, Walid Shoebat, and Mosab Hassan Yousef.

==Critics==
Most contemporary critics of Islam are either atheists or nominally religious: [[Ibn Warraq]] (author), [[Wafa Sultan]] (psychiatrist), [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] (author), [[Hugh Fitzgerald]] (of JihadWatch), [[Oriana Fallaci]] (author), [[Geert Wilders]] (politician), [[Sam Harris]] (author), [[Pamela Geller]] (blogger), [[Bill Maher]] (comedian) and the crowd at the Ayn Rand Institute. The notable exception is [[Robert Spencer]], who while a devout Catholic, criticizes Islam as the socio-political ideology it is. Political critics include [[Winston Churchill]],<ref>[http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/winston-churchills-brutal-takedown-of-islam-means-more-today-than-ever Winston Churchill’s Brutal Takedown of Islam Means More Today than Ever]</ref> [[Herman Cain]], [[Rick Santorum]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.news-press.com/article/20130323/NEWS0119/303230016/Santorum-delivers-warning-about-radical-Islam-during-Naples-appearance|title=Santorum delivers warning about radical Islam during Naples appearance|date=March 23, 2013|newspaper=Fort Meyers News Press|author=Lindsay Downey}}</ref> [[David Horowitz]] (author) and [[Pat Robertson]] (preacher). Neither [[Ronald Reagan]] (who helped mujahideen fight atheistic Communists) nor [[George W. Bush]] ("Islam means peace") saw Islam as the problem. Commentators note that the conservative response to fundamental Islam is a far cry from the complete and unequivocal condemnation of Communism during the heyday of the Cold War.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.liberty-and-culture.com/conservatives.html|title=The Conservative Response to the Islamic Threat.|author=Jason Pappas|date=Sept 5, 2004}}</ref> [[Dinesh D’Souza]] argues that Muslims are "God-fearing conservatives",<ref>{{cite book|author=Dinesh D’Souza|title=The Enemy At Home|year=2007|publisher= Doubleday}}</ref> even though they have formed convenient alliances with liberals and several Islamic countries (particularly Iran) have formed alliances with the Communist regimes in [[China]] and [[North Korea]] and the Marxist regime in [[Venezuela]] to oppose the United States and its Western allies.<ref>''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]</ref>

== Atheism vs. Islam ==
See also: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] and [[Secular Europe]]
[[File:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumbnail|right|325px|In 2014, the Pew Research Forum indicated that [[Europe]] will go from 11% of the world's population to 7% of the world's population by 2050.<ref>[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/ 10 projections for the global population in 2050] By Rakesh Kochhar, Pew Research Forum, February 3, 2014</ref>]]
From a global perspective, [[Europe]] is more secular/[[Atheism|atheistic]] than the rest of the world although it does have a considerable amount of religious immigrants who have higher birth rates (see: [[Secular Europe]] and [[Atheist population]] and [[Global atheism]]).

=== Future of Islam in Europe and the desecularization of Europe ===
In April 2010, Eric Kaufmann indicated concerning the future of Islam in Europe:
{{cquote|I address this in some detail in the book, as well is in a [http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/europes-muslim-future recent article in the April issue of Prospect magazine] here in Britain. The short answer is that I don’t foresee a Muslim-majority Europe in this century or in the next. Why? Mainly because Muslim birthrates are plunging both in Europe and the Muslim world. Already, Iran, Tunisia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and several other Muslim countries have replacement-level fertility or below. In the UK, Bangladeshi and Pakistani fertility has halved in a generation and is now under 3 children per woman. This means their long-term growth will begin to tail off. The other part of the equation is the rise of non-Muslim immigrant groups (African and West Indian Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other Eastern faiths) who are also increasing and therefore making Europe more plural and, in the process, rendering it harder for Muslims to increase their share of the population.

That said, Muslim membership retention and in-group marriage is exceptionally high (over 90 per cent) and they are a much younger population than the host society. So they are on course for steady growth. My colleagues and I expect their fertility to fall to host levels by 2030, but they will still make up 5-15 per cent of most West European countries by 2050 and 10-25 per cent by 2100. This is a major change from the 2-6 per cent levels of today<ref>[http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shall_the_religious_inherit_the_earth/#sthash.nE0JGi2Y.dpuf ''Shall the religious inherit the earth?''], 2010 Interview with [[Eric Kaufmann]] by MercatorNet</ref>}}

Due to the growing number of Muslims moving into secular Europe/[[Western World]] and the ideological differences between the [[atheist worldview]] and Islam, there has been growing tension between [[atheism|atheists]]/secularists and Muslims - particularly between [[Militant atheism|militant atheists]] and militant Islam.

The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in "[[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]]" behavior.<ref>
*[https://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013
*[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of Islam/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of "Islamophobia".<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref>

For more information, please see:

*[[Atheism vs. Islam]]
*[[Atheism vs. Christianity]]

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Islamophobia]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Jihadism]], an extremist, take on Islam
*[[Ramadan]]
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] encounter of Israeli Messianic Jew and Egyptian Muslim in Alexandria
*[[List of countries by number of Muslims]]
*[[Undercover Muslim]]
*[[Islamic worldviews]]
*[[Islamophilia]]
*[[Judaism and Islam]]
*[[Atheism vs. Islam]]
*[[Islam and Christianity]]

==Further reading==
* Armour, Rollin. ''Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Christianity-West-Troubled-History/dp/1570754071/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]
* Armstrong, Karen. ''Islam: A Short History'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Berkey, Jonathan P. ''The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Formation-Islam-Religion-Society-600-1800/dp/0521588138/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Campo, Juan Eduardo. ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2009), basic introduction
* Esposito, John J. ''The Oxford History of Islam'' (2000) [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Glasse, Cyril. ''The New Encyclopedia of Islam'' ( 2nd ed. 2008)
* Lewis, Bernard. ''Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East'' (2001), by leading conservative historian [https://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-People-Events-Middle/dp/0812695186/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, Richard C. et al. ''Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World'' (2003), more advanced
* Newby, Gordon. ''A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopedia-Islam-Gordon-Newby/dp/1851682953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342942&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Robinson, Chase F. ed. ''The New Cambridge History of Islam'' (Volume 1) (2009), summarizes advanced scholarship
* Ruthven, Malise, and Azim Nanji. ''Historical Atlas of Islam'' (2004)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. (1992)
* Sonn, Tamara and Mary Williamsburg. ''A Brief History of Islam'' (2004) [https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Blackwell-Histories-Religion/dp/1405109009/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Wheatcroft, Andrew. ''Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Infidels-History-Conflict-Between-Christendom/dp/0812972392/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]
* Congressional Research Service, "Islam: A Primer", Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain and the source of part of this article [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]
*[http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/01/islamists-torch-pope-in-effigy-again.html Islamists Torch Pope in Effigy, Again]
*[http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/december/849_kind-strangers.html Muslims Saving Jews During World War II.] By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh.
*[http://differencesbetween.com/islam-and-muslim/ Difference Between Islam and Muslim]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ A Turkish Delight: they think so in Israel too!]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Turkey's Islamic scholar, Rabbi Meir Lau, and Cain speechless before Abel]

==References==
{{reflist|group=note}}

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Political Ideologies]]

Creationism

2015-06-19T17:21:55Z

Dsherman:

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|alt=creationism|right|thumb|250px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the [[creation]] of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Creationism''' is the belief that the [[earth]] and [[universe]] and the various kinds of animals and plants were created by a god or gods. Those that hold the views of ''Creationism'' are referred to as ''Creationists''.<ref>"creationist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist>.</ref> Creationism is contrary to the [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]].<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]</ref>

[[Bible|Biblical]] creationism is primarily based on: the compelling testimony provided by [[Argument from beauty|God's wondrous creation]]; the [[Bible history|historical]] and [[Bible prophecy|prophetic]] evidence supporting the [[Bible]]; religious belief and on the [[science|scientific]] evidence provided through [[creation science]].
Biblical creationism, which includes the idea that man is created in the image of God, has profoundly affected [[Western Civilization]] in a positive way. Some of the areas it has benefited Western culture is in the areas of human rights and law, ethics and morality, economics, science, and the arts (see also: [[Christianity and science]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/man-the-image-of-god Man: The Image of God]
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution]
*[http://creation.com/morality-and-ethics-questions-and-answers Morality and ethics - Creationism vs. evolutionism]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_67-73.pdf The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny]
*[http://creation.com/marxism-law-and-evolution Marxism, law and evolution]
*[http://creation.com/evolutionary-legal-theories Evolutionary legal theories—the impact of Darwinism on western conceptions of law]
*[http://creation.com/darwins-critical-influence-on-the-ruthless-extremes-of-capitalism Darwin's influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism]
*[http://creation.com/christianity-islam-and-science Christianity, Islam and Science]
*[http://creation.com/looking-forward-to-the-eradication-of-christianity Looking forward to the eradication of Christianity - Christianity, creationism and the arts]
</ref>

[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization, declared:
{{cquote|Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the [[atheism|atheists]] and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, ''[[Journal of Creation]]'' has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against [[evolution]], creating little fires all around the world, including [[Great Britain]].

Atheist evangelist, Prof [[Richard Dawkins]], speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.

It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from [[United States|America]] and [[Australia]].’<ref>http://creation.com/growth-of-creation-science-in-uk-worries-prof-dawkins</ref>}}

Within creationism in the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, there are various ideas. In regards to those religions, one form of creationism holds that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and is referred to as [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationism]]. The other form of creationism is called [[Old Earth Creationism]] and holds that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Creationist scientists demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and [[Genetics|genetically]] distinct forms of life." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] also wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Creation scientists assert that the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] is in conflict with the evidence provided by the physical sciences and often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[evolution]]).<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/21</ref>

Those who hold to young earth creationism point out that nearly every culture in the world has a [[creation]] story and a [[Great flood|flood story]]. <ref>http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChII.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/108/</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/18757/creation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/17051.htm</ref> Many of these creation accounts and flood accounts have commonalities with the account given in the book of Genesis although gross differences exist also. <ref>http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChII.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/108/</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref> The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has taken the position that the similarities in regards to creation accounts to the Genesis account demonstrates that the main points of the Genesis account has been preserved. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/108/</ref> In regards to the assertion that the similarities in flood stories around the world show common origin, young earth creationist particularly assert that there are strong similarities between the [[Global flood|Genesis flood account]] and other world flood accounts. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends</ref> Also, there are remarkable similarities between Native American creation myths and the biblical account given in Genesis concerning [[creation]].<ref>[http://creation.com/indian-creation-myths Indian creation myths - CMI]</ref>

== Effect of the growth of modern creationism and Christian apologetics ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christian revival, Christian apologetics and creationism]]

The effect of evolutionism on the [[Western World]] and the world at large was mitigated by the growth of modern creationism and [[Christian apologetics]] in the latter half of the 20th century and today [[global creationism]], Christian apologetics and [[global Christianity]] is seeing rapid growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref><ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], ''Vancouver Sun'', October 4, 2014</ref>

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."<ref>[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism in Europe]</ref>

=== History of the growth of creationism and its effect on Christendom ===
Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian wrote in their work ''Introduction To Integrated [[Christian apologetics|Christian Apologetics]]'':
{{cquote|American evangelical Christians have began to notice in the fifties that compromise is a slow poison that ultimately destroys respect for truth. Some of them came together and started writing aggressively on themes defending the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible. This gave birth to the modern interest in Apologetics and Creationism. At the dawn of the twenty-first century the influence of this revival has spread all over the world, and today more than one hundred and fifty organizations function around the world, devoted solely to apologetics. Their influence has be so strong that a large number of Seminaries all around the world have begun assert the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible...

...with the birth of the modern creationism and apologetics, a revival set in motion among the evangelical Christians. This group became quite vocal and aggressive in the sixties, and by seventies they started exerting significant influence among theologians, thinkers, and the Bible teachers all over the world.

Thousands of apologetic books, hundreds of magazines, and tens of thousands of articles have been produced defending the Bible since. In turn, this has started to diminish the influence of [[rationalism|rationalists]] and radicals on Christians.

From the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth century the rationalists had their heyday, snatching away millions of young people from their Christian faith and commitment. The wounds of this loss can been seen in Christendom even today, but at the same time this loss has been greatly minimized now because of the work of Christian apologists.

Today anyone desiring to know about the Bible, and its connection with science, evolution, history, archaeology, has read any number of books on this topic. Literally thousands of titles are available, and he can choose anywhere from the most simple books to the most technically advanced ones. Thus the modern apologetics movement has been able to arrest the way in which rationalists have been bleeding the Christian church.<ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>}}

==Creationism and Controversy==
=== Creationism and Intelligent Design ===
Believers in the Abrahamic faiths who hold to creationism believe that the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there have been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths have points of agreement and disagreement with the intelligent design movement. They agree that the natural world has an intelligent cause and was designed as mentioned previously. However, some advocates of creationism believe that the intelligent design movement divorces the Creator from creation by not explicitly stating that the cause of creation is a supernatural being and also failing to state explicitly who that supernatural being is.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>

There is considerable disagreement on whether or not intelligent design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas.

For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts [[common descent]]. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a US Federal District Judge, ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion borrowed heavily from the ACLU's briefs. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> The Kitzmiller vs. Dover case did not take into account that [[Atheism is a religion|atheistic evolution is religious in nature]].<ref>http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf</ref>

=== Creationists video evangelism ===

''see also:'' [[Internet evangelism]]

Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) is one of the world's largest evangelism organizations within Christendom and has over 25,000 full time missionaries. In 2006, Alan Beeber of CCCI predicted that [[internet evangelism]] will result in more conversion that all other forms of evangelism for CCCI combined.<ref>http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/pdf/issues/LWP0206.pdf</ref>

YouTube is a popular online video sharing site that provides a method distributing Christian/creationist videos across the world. The YouTube search engine is the second largest search engine in the world.<ref>http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/39777-youtube-surpasses-yahoo-as-world%E2%80%99s-2-search-engine</ref> There is a widespread problem with [[Atheistic bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and creationist YouTube channels. [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

Also, one popular Christian YouTube channel, [[Shockofgod]], was shut down several times by atheist cyberbullying through false reports but [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video he was able to thwart their cyberbullying using some effective tactics].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kax-zAJxi-U</ref> These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out [[Christianity]] and [[creation science]].

== Biblical creation publications ==

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== Adherents and Opponents of Creationism ==

Traditionally, [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/558/ Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref> In addition, a majority of the early church fathers supported the young earth creationist view.<ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1].</ref> While Young Earth Creationism is prominent in many conservative [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations, theologically liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations generally reject it.<ref>[[Henry Morris|Morris, Henry]], [http://www.icr.org/article/816/6/ Old-Earth Creationism] ''Back to Genesis'' April 1997.</ref><ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html What Conservative Protestants Believe] (beliefnet).</ref><ref>Jarvik, Elaine, [http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635177399,00.html Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion] Deseret Morning News 19 January 2006.</ref> The [[Roman Catholic Church]] has a cautiously positive view of the theory of evolution. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18220.html Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn] (beliefnet).</ref> [[Orthodox Judaism]] currently has diverse opinions regarding young earth creationism.<ref>Rabbinical Council of America, [http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635 Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design].</ref> Ultra-Orthodox Judaism accepts young earth creationism.<ref>Winnick, Pamela R.,[http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/toledo_winnick030702.htm Evolutionary War] ''Toledo City Paper'', March 7 2002.</ref> Islam has a variety of opinions regarding creationism and the theory of evolution. <ref>http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm</ref>[[Atheism|Atheists]] do not believe in young earth creationism and a vast majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>http://www.creationists.org/nas.html</ref> [[Charles Darwin]] in his private diaries [[Charles Darwin#Religious Views|stated he was a materialist]] which a type of atheist. While [[Agnosticism|agnostics]] do not believe in young earth creationism there have been some notable statements of skepticism regarding the theory of evolution from agnostics.<ref>Woodward, Thomas E., [http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html Doubts About Darwin] (Apologetics Press).</ref><ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/03/agnostic_philosopher_caught_in_conspirac.html Agnostic Philosopher Caught in Conspiracy to Question Darwinism] ''Evolution News & Views'', ([[Discovery Institute]]).</ref> On the other hand, [[Thomas Huxley]] was a staunch proponent of the theory of evolution and he stated he was an agnostic. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1025</ref><ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/desmond171.htm</ref>

== Global creationism ==

''See also:'' [[Global creationism]]
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] was a founder of [[Creation Ministries International]], a Christian ministry which is in four continents. ]]
On October 4, 2014, the ''Vancouver Sun'' reported that evolutionism is rejected by hundreds of millions of [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] and [[Islam|Muslims]] around the world.<ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], ''Vancouver Sun'', October 4, 2014</ref>

Specifically, the ''Vancouver Sun'' declared:
{{cquote|Creationism, a religious world view that adamantly rejects Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, is on the rise among evangelical Protestants and most of the world’s Muslims.

It is not only the majority of residents in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey who strongly reject the teaching that humans and other species evolved over millions of years from less complex creatures. So do tens of millions of evangelical Christians in North America (as well as South America and Africa).

Overall, [Nidhal Guessoum, a Middle Eastern physics and astronomy professor] who teaches at the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, estimates roughly 60 per cent of the world’s Muslims are creationists, including many living in the U.S. and Canada.

Even though poll results about evolution vary based on the questions asked, Salman Hameed reported in the journal ''Science'' that strong anti-evolution majorities exist in Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Pakistan. The latter is among Canada’s top six source countries for immigrants...

An Angus-Reid survey found 43 per cent of Americans accept the creationist teaching that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, which means they reject the...view the universe began roughly 13 billion years ago.<ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], Vancouver Sun, October 4, 2014. 9:12 am</ref>}}

== Recommended books ==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== See also ==
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Essay: Sharing your creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]]
*[[Creation science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Lists of Creationists]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Evidence for Christianity)
*[[Creationism table]]
*[[Dharma#2._Dharmakaya_-_Tathagata_Garbha_-_Dharma_Dhatu_as_Source_of_the_Universe|Buddhist Creator Source of the Universe]] in [[Esoteric]] [[Mahayana]] [[Buddhism]]

==External links ==
===Young Earth Creationist Organizations ===

*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/ Creation Worldview Ministries]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]

'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]

'''Young earth articles and other resources:'''

*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

=== Old Earth Creationists ===
[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry]

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

[[Category:Creationism| ]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]

Pope Francis

2015-05-14T01:47:41Z

Dsherman: I'm including this bit of news because it concerns a large international issue

{|class="infobox" style="font-size:100%; float:right; margin-left:3px; border:1.5px solid black;" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="3" width="150" border=0
|-
!colspan="2" style="background:#306EFF;text-align:center"|'''<big>Pope Francis</big>'''
|-
|[[File:Card. Jorge Bergoglio SJ, 2008.jpg|right|200px|thumb|His Holiness, Pope Francis.]]
|-
|Papacy Began: 13 March 2013
|-
|Papacy Ended: Currently in office
Predecessor: [[Pope Benedict XVI]]
Successor: None
|-
| <hr>
|-
|Born: 17 December 1936, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Nationality: [[Argentina|Argentine]]

Motto: ''Miserando atque eligendo''
|-
|Reference style: His Holiness
In person: Your Holiness

In religion: Holy Father
|}
His Holiness '''Pope Francis''' (formerly '''Jorge Mario Bergoglio''', born December 17, 1936, in [[Buenos Aires]], [[Argentina]]) became the [[Pope]] of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] on March 13, 2013. Pope Francis, elected as 266th Roman Catholic pontiff, is the first Jesuit and the first Latin American pope; First non-European pope in 1300 years. He succeeded Pope [[Benedict XVI]], to whom he was reportedly the runner-up in the papal election of 2005. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-pope-succession-bergoglio-idUSBRE92C15X20130313</ref> Archbishop Bergoglio was created a cardinal by the late [[Pope John Paul II]].

Pope Francis understands the harm posed by the [[homosexual agenda]], and has even spoken of the need to expel the "[[gay lobby]]" from the [[Vatican]].

Pope Francis is also set to sign a treaty that includes a provision that will recognize [[Palestine]] as a state <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/middleeast/vatican-to-recognize-palestinian-state-in-new-treaty.html?_r=0</ref>.

==Policies==
Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, has been an outspoken critic of [[homosexual]] adoption of children, explaining that it is discriminatory against the children.<ref>http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16363162/who-is-jorge-bergoglio/</ref> Pope Francis is also strongly [[pro-life]], and has referred [[abortion]] as the "culture of death."

<blockquote>
Among his teachings and stands, he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to give legal equivalency between true marriage and homosexual partners. <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50111 By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM).]</ref>
</blockquote>

Pope Francis entered the Society of Jesus in 1958. As a [[Jesuit]], Cardinal Bergoglio rejected and opposed [[liberation theology]] in [[South America]].

The son of an Italian workman who emigrated to [[Argentina]], Cardinal Bergoglio chose to carry the name of an Italian saint, "Francis", while serving as Pope. And like his papal namesake, [[St. Francis of Assisi|St. Francis]], Cardinal Bergoglio has an ascetic and humble lifestyle.

Pope Francis has overcome a disability: as a young man, one of his lungs was removed due to illness.

His holiness remains an adamant supporter of [[Social Justice]]. His 2009 speech, titled Las deudas sociales de nuestro tiempo, or The Social Debts of our Time, lays out his views on the world's inequality, between rich and poor, especially in Argentina. He further rebuked the wealthy, claming that "You ''[the wealthy]'' avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair. We must reclaim the memory of our country who has a mother, recover the memory of our Mother"

The Pope is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion people - almost 17% of the Earth's population and 55% of all Christians.

==Naming conventions==
Vatican tradition holds that when a new Pope is elected and takes a name that has not been used by a prior pope, they will be referred to simply as "Pope ______", rather than "Pope ______ I" until another pope has taken the same name. In this case "Pope Francis". <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-vatican-pope-francis-name-20130313,0,1309501.story</ref>

<center>
[[File:Pope Francis march 2013 First mass.jpg]]

Pope Francis' First Mass.
</center>

==Scientific Views==

Pope Francis recently declared [[evolution]] and [[Big Bang theory]] are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]] that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html]

==See also==
*[[Holy Week]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50111 NEW POPE: Who is this man named Bergoglio?]
*[http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/13/world/pope-name/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Pope Francis' name choice 'precedent shattering'.]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/will-pope-francis-challenge-muslim-persecution-of-christians/ Will Pope Francis Challenge Muslim Persecution of Christians?]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

College

2014-10-19T18:18:53Z

Dsherman:

A '''college''' is an institution of post-secondary education. Depending on whether the student selects one of the [[Worst College Majors]], college can leave the student in suffocating debt and delusional. The effects of which will take decades to undo.

A college may be an independent organization, or one of many colleges (and often graduate schools) under the umbrella of a [[university]] system. In the [[United States]], the word college is usually used to refer to university. However, in the [[United Kingdom]] and some former British territories, the word may used to denote a school for post-secondary, but non-degree education, defined as Further Education. Many UK secondary school students will go to a college (a Sixth Form College or a College of Further Education) after the age of 16, to study academic, business or vocational subjects up to pre-university level.

The word college is also used in a few non-educational applications, such as the [[Electoral College]] in the [[United States]], the Royal College of Nursing in the United Kingdom, or the [[College of Cardinals]] at the [[Vatican]].

Some colleges and professors have been known for their strong liberal biases, and for promoting [[liberal propaganda]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html]</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==
* [[Conservative colleges]]

[[category:education]]
[[category:colleges|*]]

Conservapedia:Image upload requests

2014-01-30T02:15:34Z

Dsherman:

<center><big><big>'''Place Current Requests At The Bottom Please!'''</big></big></center>
{{clear}}

[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 3|Archive 3]] 
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 5|Archive 5]]
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests/Archive 6|Archive 6]]

----

'''Image uploading is a privilege, not a right. See [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. Requests for image uploads can be placed here, or simply ask [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Upload someone with upload rights] or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=100. any Administrator].'''

NOTE: '''Do NOT upload AP Photos''' (Copyright - [[Associated Press]]). We don't have Fair use rights to those images.
See also - [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Users without image upload privileges can specify specific locations for their requested images with {{tl|Image request}}, which adds articles to [[:Category:Articles in need of an image]].
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

==[[French Presidents]]==
Including (as a start) [[Nicolas Sarkozy]], [[Jacques Chirac]], [[François Mitterrand]], [[Charles de Gaulle]].--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:28, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
==[[Billy Idol]]==
<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Billy_Idol.jpg]</s>.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:21, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Billy_Idol.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)
==[[MaDonal]]==
<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sulaymaniyah_McD.jpg].-</s>-[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:08, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Sulaymaniyah_McD.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)
==[[Aloha from Hawaii]]/[[Elvis Presley]]==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElvisPresleyAlohafromHawaii.jpg]--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:07, 17 December 2011 (EST)
*Uploaded [[File:ElvisPresleyAlohafromHawaii.jpg|thumb]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 December 2011 (EST)
:Thanks, Ed! I will give you this: it is a bit gaudy, but that was how Elvis rolled!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:25, 17 December 2011 (EST)
==Cities==
*[http://visionbresil.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/sao_paulo_vista_aerea_590.jpg] for [[Sao Paulo]]
*[http://www.bestourism.com/img/items/big/80/Mosque-Faisal-in-Islamabad-Pakistan_One-the-largest-and-most-beautiful-mosque_74.jpg] for [[Islamabad]]
<s>*[http://atvm.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/melbourne-city.jpg] for [[Melbourne]]</s>
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Queen%27s_Park_-_Art_Sculpture.jpg/800px-Queen%27s_Park_-_Art_Sculpture.jpg] for [[Melbourne]]
<s>*[http://www.easyvoyage.co.uk/images/destination/ALGERIE/ALGERIE2/1_big.jpg] for [[Algiers]]</s>
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Algiers_coast.jpg/800px-Algiers_coast.jpg] for [[Algiers]]
<s>*[http://www.orangesmile.com/common/img_final_large/brussels_sightseeing.jpg] for [[Brussels]] (such a nice city by the way)</s>
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Brussels_floral_carpet_B.jpg/800px-Brussels_floral_carpet_B.jpg] for [[Brussels]]
*I can't believe CP does not have a picture of Uluru ! [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Uluru_Australia%281%29.jpg/799px-Uluru_Australia%281%29.jpg]
* And the list will be growing !

==Upload request==
<s>Can you upload [http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=383&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=BUlFPuGHUh7y7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.thirdage.com/news-photo/john-edwards-mug-shot-jpg/68879&docid=7voS1yMoL3fxcM&imgurl=http://www.thirdage.com/files/originals/john-edwards-mug-shot.jpg&w=560&h=373&ei=ybggT9eGEpLo2gWs4ZilCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=61&vpy=64&dur=3954&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=133&ty=204&sig=113777376745406980067&page=1&tbnh=78&tbnw=117&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0 this image] to update the [[John Edwards]] page. Thanks.</s> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 25 January 2012 (EST)
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:John-edwards-mug-shot.jpg] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:05, 27 January 2012 (EST)

==[[Religion]]==
*<s>[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Israeli_blue_Star_of_David.png/520px-Israeli_blue_Star_of_David.png] for [[Judaism]]
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Baha%27i_star.png] for [[Bahá'í]]
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Messianic_Seal_with_8_Caldles.png] for [[Messianic Judaism]]
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Khanda.jpg] for [[sikhism]]
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Faravahar.png] for [[Zoroastrianism]]
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/JainismSymbol.PNG] for [[Jainism]]
And many more... 
By the way, why is image upload so controlled ? It must be a big charge for you.</s>--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:40, 3 January 2012 (EST)

==[[Elvis Presley phenomenon]]==
<s>[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elvis_impersonators_record.jpg]</s>--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:43, 15 December 2011 (EST)
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Elvis_impersonators.jpg] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:40, 5 March 2012 (EST)

==[[Sao Tome and Principe]]==
<s>*[http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-countries-flags/sao-tome-principe-flag.gif]
*[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Coat_of_arms_of_S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9_and_Pr%C3%ADncipe.jpg]</s>--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:46, 15 December 2011 (EST)

==[[Elvis Presley movies]]==
<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Love_me_tender423.jpg ''Love Me Tender'']</s> --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:45, 3 March 2012 (EST)
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Love_me_tender.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:40, 5 March 2012 (EST)

<s><s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Loving_you_poster.jpg ''Loving You'']</s></s> --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:05, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Loving_you_poster.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:40, 5 March 2012 (EST)

<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jailhouse_rock787.jpg ''Jailhouse Rock'']</s>--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:48, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Jailhouse.jpg] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:53, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Creole_poster.jpg ''King Creole'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GIBluesElvis.jpg ''GI Blues'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flamsta2.jpg ''Flaming Star'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WildintheCountryMoviePoster.jpg ''Wild in the Country'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_hawaii_poster.jpg ''Blue Hawaii'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FollowThatDreamElvis.jpg ''Follow That Dream'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kidgalahad.jpg ''Kid Galahad'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:43, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Girls_Girls_Girls_Poster_B.jpg ''Girls! Girls! Girls!''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ithappenedattheworldsfair.jpg ''It Happened at the World's Fair'']--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fun_acapulco_movieposter.jpg ''Fun in Acapulco''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiscousposter.jpg ''Kissin' Cousins''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VivaLasVegasElvis.jpg ''Viva Las Vegas''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RoustaboutElvis.jpg ''Roustabout''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GirlHappyElvisP.JPG ''Girl Happy''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ticklemeposter.jpg ''Tickle Me''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harumscarum.jpg ''Harum Scarum''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankie_and_Johnny-1966-poster.jpg ''Frankie and Johnny''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

==[[McDonald's]]==
<s>[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McDonald%27s_Golden_Arches.svg More up-to-date logo]</s>
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:McDonald%27s_Golden_Arches.png]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:40, 5 March 2012 (EST)

<s>[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McKosher.jpg McDonald's in Israel]
</s>
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:McKosher.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:40, 5 March 2012 (EST)
:P.S. - For someone that rails against the unhealthy world of bacon, you sure do love your unhealthy McD's--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:40, 5 March 2012 (EST)
::I don't eat it, actually. I just committed to writing a proper article on the chain a while back and decided to do it now. And thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:57, 5 March 2012 (EST)
==Rockstar Advanced Game Engine==
<s>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine.svg/500px-Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine.svg.png</s>
[[User:Mikon8er]]
: Done. [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Rockstar.png] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:20, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
==Intel logo==
http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/HAT/50recode/pix/main-logo.png
For the articles on Intel, and Intel related articles(processors, gpus etc)
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 22:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==[[Elvis Presley directory]]==
[http://photos.elvispresley.com.au/1956_june_3_oakland_auditorium.html ''Elvis in 1956''] --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

==[[Full Asylum book cover]]==
[http://www.monteferropress.com/images/Full_Asylum_Cover_Front.jpg ''Full Asylum book cover''] --[[User:Misenber|Michael Isenberg]] 19:20, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

==[[Racism]]==
[http://dailybail.com/storage/racist_democrat_poster.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1282078783403 ''Racist Democratic Party poster'']--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 22:13, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
:We need to attribute the rights to this pic in order to upload. The dailybail hosting it is not the original license holder. To prevent ownership hassles, I searched for it and could not find attribution. This pic is from the Library of Congress, let me know if this poster will suffice. [http://explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-1890] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:49, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==[[Synchronized Swimming]]==
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Synchronized_swimming_-_Russian_team.jpg
For a new article.
Thanks! --[[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 19:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

==Nupedia==
<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nupedia_oldlogo.PNG Nupedia]</s> --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:45, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
:Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Nupedia_oldlogo.PNG] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:17, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

==E-Sword==
We have an old screenshot of the program. A new version (possibly from [http://www.e-sword.net/features.html]) would be nice. Not sure what our original permissions to the image were, nor if we need new permissions for an updated screenshot. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 01:16, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

==Upload request==
[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elizabeth_Warren_at_Women_In_Finance_symposium.jpg Public domain photo of Elizabeth Warren] --[[User:Qw|Qw]], 22 November 2012

[http://www.looking-glass.greenend.org.uk/help.htm Fair use photo for Transsexual page] --[[User:Qw|Qw]], 26 November 2012

== Upload request for Panzer articles ==
I just came across this page. I would request photos for:
*[[Tiger I tank]]
*[[Jagdpanther]]

Cheers, [[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 23:44, 4 December 2012 (EST)
:Is anyone checking this page still? --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 15:18, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

==[[Tom Clancy]]==
I would like to add a photo of the author to the page.

[[User:PatrickMarion|PatrickMarion]] 22:15, 21 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion

==Europe==
Could you upload the right map of Europe? Current map omits Ukraine and majority of European Russia: http://cstclair.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/border_of_europe.jpg/291057121/border_of_europe.jpg

Also, the regions should look like that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grossgliederung_Europas-en.svg

==Compton Scattering==
Could someone please upload [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Compton_scattering_diagram.png this picture]? Here are the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Compton_scattering_diagram.png copyright details]. Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:40, 16 January 2013 (EST)

==Great Leap Forward==
Please upload [http://laogaimuseum.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/1960-with-logo1.jpg this image] from last year's [http://laogaimuseum.org/2012/02/28/scholars-and-survivors-discuss-chinas-great-famine-at-laogai-research-foundation-conference/ conference at the Logai Museum] on China's Great Famine of 1959-1961 (the fruit of Mao's "Great Leap Forward") which killed an estimated [http://www.yhcw.net/famine/Research/Smil99.htm 30 million people]. Thanks. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 09:12, 20 January 2013 (EST)

==Magdeburg ==
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magdeburger_Dom_mit_Elbe.jpg

source: wikimedia via flickr
author: [http://www.flickr.com/people/28224460@N00 Torsten Maue]]

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)

:Is there another way to ask for an upload? This doesn't work that well... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 11 February 2013 (EST)
::Anybody out there? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:30, 15 February 2013 (EST)

:::Done [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:800px-Magdeburger_Dom_mit_Elbe.jpg]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:38, 17 February 2013 (EST)

==CAPTCHA==
Could someone please upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern-captcha.jpg this image] for use in [[CAPTCHA]]? It says that it has been released to public domain. [[User:DashP|DashP]] 11:46, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

==Succession==
I'd like [http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/succession.gif this] uploaded for use in the [[succession]] article i just created--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 22:39, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

==Filipacchi==

If [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amanda_Filipacchi_portrait.jpg this] was uploaded, readers could get a better look at my notorious user page. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 21:43, 15 December 2013 (EST)

I'd like to have the Hitler image replaced by something that's more representative of Socialism: The SPUSA Logo. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/SPUSA_logo.png/225px-SPUSA_logo.png --DavidS 21:15, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Socialism

2014-01-30T02:11:18Z

Dsherman: The picture is ridiculous, it's akin to using Ted Haggard to represent Christianity or Ted Bundy to represent Republican Volunteers. Been trying to add the Socialist Party Logo but no luck yet

'''Socialism''' has its roots in visions of imaginary ideal societies, from thinkers who drew up elaborated designs and concepts for creating what they considered a more equal society, along collectivist lines or abolished private property; the primarily ideas came from British and French thinkers like [[Saint-Simon]], [[Charles Fourier]], [[Louis Blanc]], and [[Robert Owen]] preceded by [[Thomas More]], [[Tommaso Campanella]], and [[Jean Meslier]]. One of [[Karl Marx]]'s titles was the father of socialism. Currently it is considered a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system which advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century that was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi), headed by the [[fascist]], but anti-communist<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/adolf_hitler.htm</ref> [[Adolf Hitler]]. Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe]]an countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties due to over taxation and excessive spending).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref>
__TOC__
[[Image:Ur8756.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ludwig von Mises]] ]]
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.}}

Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|[[Shepard Fairey]], designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]

In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.

If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}

[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref>
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref>
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===

[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref name="misesblog">http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref name="misesblog" />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”

Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}

== Influence of Russia on socialism ==
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref>

In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class.

The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

==Contradictory Goals of Socialism==

Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.

Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref>
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.

But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.

The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power.
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!

==Types of Socialism==

There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.

===Leninism===
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]

Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.

Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).

==="Democratic" Socialism===
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref>

===Communal Socialism===
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

=== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ===

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Controversy==
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''

The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

[[Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the Western World throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.

===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismarck]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism.

During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.

See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

====New Testament socialism====
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref>

However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9)
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}

While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19)

Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff)

While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref>

In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed.

As one critic of modern-day socialism states:
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote>

== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.

In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
<blockquote>
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref>
</blockquote>

A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.

Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref name="npr">[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref name="npr" />

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==

===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be communist since then, nationalizing millions of dollars worth of American-owned property. It is notable that Fidel Castro originally self-defined as [[liberal]], before coming out openly as a communist.<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fib-global-history-ii-period-5.aspen.high.schoolfusion.us%2Fmodules%2Flocker%2Ffiles%2Fget_group_file.phtml%3Ffid%3D6868636%26gid%3D1176955%26sessionid%3D0&ei=o74IUPDNOqPp6wGbtPGxCg&usg=AFQjCNG1bEoHrxurCF_WL1OPKMxIb4hCTw Fidel Castro - His Rise and Rule of Cuba]</ref> Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their fundamental rights. (Fidel's brother [[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

[[North Korea]]'s form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by [[Kim Il Sung]] and carried on by his son [[Kim Jong Il]] and after his death by the current leader [[Kim Jong-un]]. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref> After the death of Chavez, [[Nicolás Maduro]] continues his politics.

===Other Countires===
[[Daniel Ortega]], the dictator of [[Nicaragua]], is a strong ally of Venezuela and Cuba. [[China]] and [[Vietnam]] have abolished the Socialist economy but are still governed by Communist parties. Other countries who are controlled by Socialist parties are [[Laos]], [[Angola]], [[Mozambique]] and [[Moldova]].

==Quotes==
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-- [[Winston Churchill]]

"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"

-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]

"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"

-- L. Neil Smith

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]

"All socialism involves slavery"

-- [[Herbert Spencer]]

== See also ==
*[[List of Socialist States]]
*[[Nazism and socialism]]
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills‎]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Jesus Christ

2014-01-28T22:08:45Z

Dsherman: /* Historicity of Jesus */

'''Jesus Christ''' is believed by Christians to be the prophesied Jewish Messiah. He changed the world forever with teachings of [[love]] and [[faith]], using parables like the [[Prodigal Son]] that flow from the existence of [[God]]. "Jesus triumphed over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will." Jesus repeatedly referred to himself in the [[Gospels]] as ''the'' [[Son of Man]].

According to Christian believers, Jesus is the only Son of God and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from God and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===The Pre-existence of Jesus before His incarnation===
Though it is commonly thought that Jesus had his beginning with His birth or with His conception in the womb of Mary, and that personality begins with birth and develops with age, the Person of Jesus on earth was one and the same Person as was the Son of God in the presence of the Father before the incarnation. That is why the transition of His becoming a man on earth is considered such a great act of humility and self forgetfulness - to have left it all, for us, for which He will always be honored and extolled.

Though he was in the form of God , He did not cling to this equality with God, but emptied himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are, and being found as a man, he was even humbler yet, even to accepting death, even on a cross. But God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all other names, so that all beings, in the heavens, and on the earth, and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus, and that every tongue should acclaim, Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

===The Flight to Egypt===

King Herod, in his thirst for power and his paranoia at the news that someone was born, whose "star from the east" indicated that there was indeed a claimant to his throne, the Messiah of Israel, sent his garrison, most probably from the fortress Herodian which over looked the town of Bethlehem, Bethlehem, the home of David, the most Illustrious of Israel's kings, would soon experience the death of its two years and under male children, in Herod's pursuit of retention of his power. This has been called the Massacre of the Innocents. But Jesus was not among them as his father Joseph, being warned in a dream, had spirited the family to Egypt. And there they remained until Herod was dead, and Archelaus, Herod's son, was reigning in his stead. But the "Holy Family" was not to return to Bethlehem, but to Nazareth of Galilee, and so Jesus would grow an Israelite and a Galilean, and his first disciples, Galileans. But the fight into Egypt and the return from Egypt to the land of Israel, is seen by the Gospel of Matthew to have another reason intended for it by the Father. The son of God in the writings of Moses was, of course, Israel itself, and the Prophet Hosea would later write, God Himself speaking, "When Israel was a youth, hadn't I loved him, and hadn't I called my son out of Egypt?" But Matthew would write, speaking of the return of Jesus to Israel, from Egypt, in direct reference to the Prophet Hosea's prophesy, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son", thereby letting us know, in his own way, who Jesus is - He is the Son of the Father, the son, who had and would not fail. He is Israel, the remnant, and through Him, the nations of the world would be blessed, along with His people, Israel. In this way does Matthew share in the kalaidoscopic image of who He is. He is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the Son of the Father, Israel, who not failing, neither in the forty day temptation in the wilderness, nor through any part of His life on earth, became worthy and holy to become the sacrifice for the sins of the others.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precincts, and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra-biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which would try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fulfillment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and [[Three Temptations of Christ|tried three times]] to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.
[[File:Hoffman Christ And The Rich Young Ruler.jpg|thumb|Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann (1824–1911), 1889.]]
'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
[[File:Cordero El Redentor y la mujer adultera.jpg|thumb|300px|left|El Redentor y la mujer adultera by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharisees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

===The Turning Point===

It was at the city built in honor of Herod's son Phillip, Ceasarea Philippi, dedicated to the worship of Pan at the subterraenean breakout of the spring which was tributary to the Jordon River, the Ban(Pan)ias, that Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I am?, Simon finally answered, You are the [[Messiah]], the Son of the Living God. Jesus responded that flesh and blood had not revealed this fact but His Father had. Then Jesus gave him his new name Peter, meaning rock, and told him that he and the Church to be built on the rock would be thrown against the very gates of Hades itself, gates which would be unable to withstand the onslaught, setting Hell's captives free. (See Example 5. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]). From that place of confession, and from the time of Peter's confession itself, Jesus began to refine to His disciples, excluding all doubt and ambiguity from their minds as to the purpose of His coming, what it was all about. He the Messiah had come to die. They were to go up to Jerusalem, and there he would be rejected and denounced by the priests and elders, handed over to the Gentiles, and be put to death. And so began the 3 days journey from Caesarea Philippi, then along the eastern shore of the Sea of Galillee, along the Jordon river valley, through Jericho, and then the ascent to Jerusalem, Jesus telling his followers repeatedly the same message of His rejection and death, and then, if they could take it in, in such a way as not to suppress from their consciousness the main message He needed to instill into their acceptance, that of his humiliation and death, His subsequent resurrection form the dead. As the Gospel of Mark would record the words of the Lord, "For the Son of Man has not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life for the ransom of many"

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''
[[Image:The Last Supper WM.jpg|right|300px]]
It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?" Luke 24:30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Revelation 3:20-21 (NIV)

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what He commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, though not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

"Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses, 
and He carried our pains; 
but we in turn regarded Him stricken, 
struck down by God, and afflicted." Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Matthew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet [[Isaiah]] might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.
[[File:Veronese Lamentation.jpg|thumb|left|[[Paolo Veronese]], Lamentation.]]
On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ
{{Clear}}

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]]. The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Michael Horner of [[Campus Crusade for Christ|CRU]] has an excellent resource which offers a defense of the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] entitled [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus really rise from the dead?]. In addition, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] offers [http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm an online audio library which defends the resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html {{dead link}}
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]]. In addition, legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], John Warwick Montgomery, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, [[Hugo Grotius]], Lord Caldecote, J. N. D. Anderson, [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ.<ref>
*[http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf]
*[http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery ]
*[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ]
*[http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2008/05/rules-of-evidence-tools-of-truth.html Rules of Evidence - Tools of Truth]
*[http://www.phc.edu/gj_philjohnsonpap.php JURIDICAL APOLOGISTS 1600-2000 AD]</ref>

===Appearances of Jesus to His followers===
For forty days after his rising from the dead Jesus made appearances to His followers. These appearances were different from other risings from the dead, both in the Old Testrament and in the New Testament. These others are best understood as resusitations from lifelessness.
That is, the people had really died, and really had been brought to life but there type of life was no different in kind from what it was before their death. A prime examploe in the New Testament was Lazarus. All of them, died a second time, waiting for the Resurrection. The very first to attain to the Resurrection was Jesus Christ, and as the first he came the "first fruits" of us all. The resurrected body of Jesus was both the same and different from what it was prior to His death. It could pass through "solids". It coulo be changed, if this be the right interpretation, in such a way as be unrecognizable. And yet it was no mere vision, unreality, or a non-physical "spiritual" reality. He could eat and drink and be touched and felt. He was real in the ways that we know realness. And we too, according to Paul, will be one with Him in having "spiritual bodies".
"And that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve, after that, He asppeared to 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living,though some have fallen asleep.Then He appeared to James, and then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me..."I Corinthians 15:5-8

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancée, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Jesus and the Holy Spirit==
The Holy Spirit was sometimes referred to as the Spirit of Jesus. This was to point out the special relationship that Jesus had to the Holy Spirit. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, rather than having been sired by Joseph. He was filled by the Holy Spirit from the time of His baptism at the Jordon river at the hands of his cousin John, and He was led by the Holy Spirit, not only into the desert to be tempted by the devil, but also all His life on earth. His empowerment to do "works" and miracles came through the Holy Spirit given Him, as the Holy Spirit would afterwards be given to all his followers, and not solely by virtue His being the Son of God. But, beyond this, there was a more special and unique relationship that Jesus had to the Holy Spirit. He taught, and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul would later echo, that the Holy Spirit would be given and poured out, to His followers through Jesus ascended to the Presence of the Father, and that, in some way, perhaps mysterious but concrete, Jesus Himself, would be with them once again, in and through the presence of the Holy Spirit which they would receive. He had gone back to the Father in order to return in a new and more complete way through the Holy Spirit. He would not leave them orphaned. This Holy Spirit, then, with Jesus and the Father, constituted the reality which would reverberate through the ages for all new believers being bought into the Church, the Body of Christ (for every body needs a spirit) - " In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shepherds. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but the general consensus is that he existed. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm {{dead link}}</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Although it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Anointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Anointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often anointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has anointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "anointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Anointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== Resources on becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px||Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]

''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://creation.com/good-news Good news of Christianity]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[Messianic Prophecies]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Christian paintings]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Mark Twain, the Ice Storm, and Jesus Christ]

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]

Christian apologetics

2014-01-05T14:40:31Z

Dsherman:

'''Christian apologetics''' is the defense of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith through logic-based arguments. The term comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''apologia'', which means "defense". There are a number of subfields within apologetics. Some apologists specialize in internal biblical consistency (such as [[JP Holding]], owner of the website tektonics.org), others in scientific defenses of the Bible, and still others in historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity (such as [[Gary Habermas]] or [[Lee Strobel]]). Although some feel that their faith needs no justification, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means, especially as many people will not accept Christianity without a "rational" reason to do so.
{{Christianity}}
==History of Christian Apologetics==
Christian apologetics has existed as long as Christianity itself. [[Jesus]] himself spent time in the temples and synagogues, debating and explaining the meaning of the scriptures. The [[Saint Peter|Apostle Peter]] exhorted early Christians to practice apologetics, writing,
:"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16.

The Apostle Paul also spent time in [[Athens]], debating [[Stoicism|Stoic]] and Epicurian philosophers. Acts 17:16.

Great theologians such as Athanasius, [[Irenaeus]], [[Justin Martyr]], [[Augustine]], and [[Aquinas]] continued the tradition of apologetics on a dramatic scale. At the same time, apologetics was practiced by countless individual Christians, explaining and defending their beliefs.

===Purposes===
Apologetics has generally been used for two purposes: Efforts to ''persuade'' others of the truth of Christianity, and efforts to ''defend'' the reasonableness of one's own beliefs, while not seeking to convince others of their truth.

==Types of Christian Apologetics==

===Evidentialist apologetics===

Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through [[evidence]]. This can take the form of:
* [[Christian historical apologetics|Defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible]]
* [[Biblical Archaeology]], seeking to show that the Bible is consistent with the physical evidence;
* [[Christian Legal Apologetics]]
* [[Bible prophecy]]
* [[Creation science]] and [[Creationism]], seeking to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are the most reasonable explanation for life as we know it and that the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]] is untenable.
* [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]

===Philosophical apologetics===
Philosophical apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through philosophical argument: primarily [[arguments for the existence of God]]. This can take the form of:
* The [[Teleological argument]]: When you find a watch in the sand, you infer that it is designed, even if you do not see the designer, because it is complex, has a definite purpose, and could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent causes. Therefore, when we observe a complex, purposeful universe which could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent cause, it is reasonable to infer the existence of a designer, aka God.

:This is connected to the [[anthropic principle]], which is the argument that so much fine-tuning and exact physiological constants allows us to be here, provides evidence in support of an intelligent designer.
* The [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in the universe is caused by something. It is impossible that everything should have a cause, going back to eternity. Therefore, there must be a [[first cause]], which itself is not caused, and that first cause must be capable of causing the universe, aka God. [[Creation science|Creationist scientists]] demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

In the 20th century, this argument has been strongly supported by [[science]], with the discovery that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the 1920s, it had been widely believed that the universe's existence had been eternal. <ref>http://www.harvardhouse.com/Science-Religion.htm</ref> This verifies the very first three words of the [[Bible]]: "In the beginning."
* The [[Ontological argument]]: God is the being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore if you conceive God as not existing, you are not conceiving the being than which no greater can be conceived, and are therefore not conceiving God. Therefore it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. Therefore God exists.
* The Argument from morality: All humans are born with a natural, moral code. A moral code implies a moral code giver, aka God.

===Presuppositional apologetics===
[[Presuppositional Apologetics]] seek to defend Christian belief by showing that belief in Christian precepts is necessary to make sense of the human experience as a whole.

== Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==

see also: [[Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]

The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref> The Christian apologist Michael Horner of [[Campus Crusade for Christ|CRU]] has an excellent resource which offers a defense of the resurrection of Jesus Christ entitled [http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/ Did Jesus really rise from the dead?]. In addition, Dr. Gary Habermas offers [http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm an online audio library which defends the resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost Christian apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher Antony Flew regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], Ben Witherington, [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], Edwin M. Yamauchi, [[N.T. Wright]] and Michael Horner. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/</ref>

Legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], John Warwick Montgomery, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, [[Hugo Grotius]], Lord Caldecote, J. N. D. Anderson, [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref>

== Question evolution campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Christian Apologetic Ministries ==
There are a number of [[internet]] based Christian apologetic Ministries or Christian apologetics ministries which have a internet presence. Some of the more notable Christian apologetic ministries are: Fixed Point Foundation<ref>http://www.fixed-point.org</ref>, Tekton Apologetics Ministries, LeadershipU, Probe Ministries, Christian Answers Network, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, and A Christian Thinktank.

== Christian websites with a large focus on the topic of atheism ==

[[File:TFT.JPG|right|200px]]
Four of the more notable Christian apologetics which have a large focus on the topic of atheism are: [[True Free Thinker]], the [[Creation Ministries International and atheism|Creation Ministries International resources on atheism]], the [[Fixed Point Foundation]] website, and [[Atheism Analyzed]].

== Christian apologetics clubs on college campuses ==

[[Ratio Christi]] is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ.

The Christian apologetics organization Stand to Reason wrote:
{{cquote|Ratio Christi, a fairly new apologetics organization that is seeking to change the intellectual atmosphere at universities by bringing Christianity into public, academic discussion. Their goal is to start on-campus apologetics clubs at 500 universities in the next five years. This is where you come in--because it’s also Ratio Christi’s goal to connect each of these clubs with a person who has been trained in apologetics (but who probably has a different day job) to act as chapter director.

Ratio Christi helps each chapter organize one or two campus-wide events a year by connecting them with speakers and debaters like William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas, helping them find the funding, etc. But after the event has come and gone, the lay apologist is still there to lead discussions and interact with the Christians, skeptics, atheists, and seekers who may never have realized that Christianity has a weighty intellectual tradition behind it.<ref>[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/05/ratio-christi-apologetics-clubs.html Ratio Christi Apologetics Clubs]</ref>}}

== Recommended books ==

'''General Christian apologetics:'''

*Carl Gallups, ''The Magic Man in the Sky: Effectively Defending the Christian Faith'', WND Books, 2012, ISBN 1936488523[http://www.amazon.com/The-Magic-Man-Sky-Effectively/dp/1936488523]
*[[Josh McDowell]], ''The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Fully Updated To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today'', 1999, ISBN 0785242198
*[[Lee Strobel]], ''Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus '', Zondervan, 1998, ISBN 0310209307
*[[Gary Habermas]] and Michael Licona, ''The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus'', Kregel Publications, 2004, ISBN 0825427886

'''Old Testament apologetics:'''

*Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., ''The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?'', IVP Academic, 2001, ISBN 0830819754
*Kenneth Kitchen, ''On The Reliability of the Old Testament'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. ISBN 0802803962

'''Biblical creation apologetics:'''

*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref> ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996<ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref> ISBN 9780890511121

*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref> ISBN 080105852X

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Christian apologetics website resources]]
*[[Israel Tourism]] for some biblical archaeological sites available to tourists
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[List of proofs of God]]
*[[Essay: How to "get" a church]] For the experience of the supernatural as aid to the acceptance of the miraculous of the Biblical story
*[[Essay: The superiority of the King James Bible: Looking through!]] For the support that correct linguistic understanding gives to the resolutiion and reasonableness of apparently confusing, conflicting, or non convincing understandings.
*[[Adiabene]] for the support of history for the Biblical Son and rule of David
*[[House of David]] for the support of archaeology and epigraphy for the Biblical witness to David and David's kingdom
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] For the contemporary 1st century and normative Jewish approach and custom authenticating New Testament data and perspective.

== External Links ==

=== General Christian apologetics websites ===

* [http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers Christian apologetics]
* [http://www.allaboutgod.com All About GOD] Answers to many questions regarding Christianity
* [http://www.str.org/site/PageServer Stand to Reason]
* [http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/resource.html Apologetics Information Ministry]
* [http://www.apologetics.com Apologetics.com]
* [http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
* [http://www.tektonics.org/classics/classics.html Classic Works of Apologetics] (Tektonics)
* [http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]
* [http://hisdefense.org/Links/Authors/tabid/297/Default.aspx Academy of Christian Apologetics]
* [http://www.lifeway.com/apologetics LifeWay Apologetics]
* [http://www.windmillministries.org Windmill Ministries]
* [http://www.probe.org/ Probe Ministries -Christian Apologetics]
* [http://www.ses.edu/Resources/ApologeticsJournal/tabid/104/Default.aspx Christian Apologetics Journal]
* [http://www.arcapologetics.org/ Apologetics Resource Center]
* [http://www.ApologeticsWiki.com/ Christian Apologetics Wiki] — [[Wiki]]-based Christian apologetics
* [http://www.actministry.org Academy for Christian Thought]
* [http://www.rbc.org/rtb/ 10 Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.proofthatgodexists.org Proof That God Exists]
* [http://www.carm.org Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries]

=== Historical and legal apologetics ===

'''Historical apologetics:'''

*[http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/jesusrose1/ Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?] by Michael Horner
*[http://www.theapologiaproject.org/WHYIBE~1.pdf Why I Believe the New Testament is historically Reliable] by Dr. [[Gary Habermas]]
*[http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/articles.htm Journal articles of Dr. Gary Habermas]
*[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?]
*[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html The Impossible faith] by [[JP Holding]]

'''Christian legal apologetics:'''

*[[Christian legal apologetics]]

=== Bible archaeology ===
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/ Bible archaeology]
*[http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn30/archaeologychurch.htm The Bible & Archaeology: The Book of Acts: The Church Begins]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/saint-luke.htm St. Luke, archaeology, Book of Acts]
*[http://www.inplainsite.org/html/acts_and_archaeology.html Archaeology and the Book of Acts]
*[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/McRay-ArchaeologyActs-CTR.pdf Archaeology and the Book of Acts] - Gordon College
*[http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA2/paultravels.asp Book of Acts - Paul's travels]
*[http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/contents.html Bible and Spade articles]
* [http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/ Archaeology and the Old Testament] by Patrick Zukeran
* [http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219999/k.A54E/The_Archaeological_Evidence_for_the_Bible_is_NonExistent.htm The Archaeological Evidence for the Bible is Non-Existent!] A reply from James F. Williams

'''Bible archaeology and dating:'''

* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2020 Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility] by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

=== Christian worldview/Christian philosophy ===
* [http://www.rzim.org/ Ravi Zacharias, modern apologist]
* [http://www.str.org/ Stand to Reason]
* [http://www.leaderu.com/menus/theology.html Leadership U]
* [http://www.worldview.org Worldview Academy]

'''Videos on atheism:'''

*[[Atheism videos|Videos on atheism]]

'''Websites, articles and videos focusing on atheism:'''

*[[Atheism website resources]]
*[[True Free Thinker]].
*[http://www.fixed-point.org Fixed Point Foundation] — Committed to publicly defending Christianity by empowering Christians and challenging skeptics.
*[[Atheism Analyzed]]

=== Creation science ministries and other resources===
* [http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Science]

[[Conservapedia]] articles on evolution and creation science:

*[[Evolution]]
*[[Creation science]]

=== Bible prophecy articles and websites ===

'''Analysis of Bible prophecy from Christian scholars/apologists'''

*[http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html#c8 Science speaks - Prophetic accuracy] by Dr. Peter Stoner
*[http://www.drjbloom.com/public%20files/PubTheoData.pdf Public Theology and Prophecy Data - Factual Evidence that Counts for a Worldview] by Dr. John Bloom, Robert C. Newman, and Hugh G. Gouch, Jr.
*[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-16.pdf The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exist] by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr.
*[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP1W1299.pdf The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exist - Part Two] by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr.
*[http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ AboutBibleprophecy]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm Prophecy about Jesus]
*[http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/ezekiel-261-14-a-proof-text-for-inerrancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspx#Article Defense of city of Tyre prophecy]

'''Rebuttal to atheist Steven Carr concerning Bible prophecy:'''

*[http://www.tektonics.org/af/carrs01.html Steven Carr's The Jury Is In Chapter 11: Rebuttal] by [[JP Holding]]

=== Biblical inerrancy resources ===
* [http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
* [http://www.christian-thinktank.com Christian Thinktank]
* [http://www.inerrancy.org/ Inerrancy.org]
* [http://www.christianthinktank.com/ A Christian Thinktank]
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/sort-2-1-100-title Alleged Bible discrepancies] by Apologetics Press

== Resources for becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px|[[Jesus Christ|Christ]] in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]
''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]] and [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[http://www.jesusfilm.org/film-and-media/watch-the-film Jesus film - free access]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

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

[[Category: Christian Apologetics]]

Duck Dynasty

2014-01-03T15:24:16Z

Dsherman:

[[File:Duck_Dynasty_Promo.jpg|right]]

'''Duck Dynasty''' is a reality television series shown on the A&E cable channel. The show follows the Robertson family of Monroe, [[Louisiana]], who patented and market a duck call whistle for duck hunters. The cast is a unique blend of family members with long beards, their wives, children and co-workers of Duck Commander. The theme is consistently traditional [[American values]]. Their appearance is mostly regarded as Redneck by [[liberals]] who oppose their [[conservative]] political views. The show typically ends with the family around the table giving thanks to [[Jesus Christ]].

In 2013, the premiere of the fourth season of the show was watched by 11.8 million viewers, making it the most-watched reality show of all time.

During this time, liberals were watching shows like [[Project Runway]] or similar dreck.

In typical [[liberal]] rejection, progressives are appalled that these men hunt animals. The Robertsons' appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live was boycotted by the scheduled singer (and well known animal rights activist) [[Morrissey]] and his band, calling them "serial animal killers".

==Politics==
Due to strong traditional values and their popularity, it has been mentioned that GOP strategists want Willie Robertson to run for the House seat serving Louisiana’s 5th District. He replied,"I'm kinda busy right now." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/duck-dynasty-star-richardson-being-eyed-as-potential-gop-house-candidate/ 'Duck Dynasty' star reportedly eyed by Republicans as potential House candidate, Fox News, August 13, 2013]</ref>

Phil Robertson endorsed Vance McAllister for Louisiana’s 5th District, who was an outsider in the race but had the backing of the Tea Party of Louisiana and [[FreedomWorks]]. McAllister would go on to defeat the GOP establishment choice, state Senator Neil Riser. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/17/louisiana-voters-pick-between-two-republicans-to-fill-open-congressional-seat/ Louisiana voters elect political newcomer to fill open congressional seat, Fox News, November 17, 2013]</ref>

==Controversial Interview With GQ==

In 2013, Phil Robertson told a GQ interviewer:
{{cquote|“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” Robertson stated. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” <ref>[http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-star-a-vagina-is-more-desirable-than-a-mans-anus/]</ref> Also, "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," Robertson told GQ. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=53618 Duck Dynasty and the GQ Interview of Phil Robertson: Rejecting Political Correctness, Catholic Online, December 21, 2013.]</ref>}} Bowing to [[homosexual]] activists [[GLAAD]], A&E suspended Robertson from the show indefinitely. After sparking national controversy, Phil would issue his own statement,
{{cquote| "I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," he said. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

"However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."}}

He also expressed an opinion about the south pre-civil rights era within the same interview which also sparked controversy:

<blockquote>
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues,"
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/</ref>

==External Links==
* [http://www.aetv.com/duck-dynasty/ Official Duck Dynasty A&E website]
* [http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-duck-dynastys-si-robertson-on-life-marriage-proposals-and-his-unwavering-belief-in-the-creator-103480/#tkrdv4s5KjwIpIIV.99 Interview: Duck Dynasty's Si Robertson on Life, Marriage Proposals, and His Unwavering Belief in The Creator]
* [http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Video-Phil-Robertson-Duck-Commander-Duck-Dynasty-Happy-Happy-Happy The Duck Commander: An Interview with Phil Robertson]
* [http://www.christianpost.com/news/duck-dynasty-star-fame-is-fleeting-what-matters-most-is-jesus-christ-94805/ 'Duck Dynasty' Star: Fame Is Fleeting; What Matters Most Is Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.christianpost.com/news/duck-dynasty-stars-phil-miss-kay-how-jesus-christ-saved-their-marriage-restored-their-family-96101/ 'Duck Dynasty' Stars Phil, Miss Kay: How Jesus Christ Saved Their Marriage, Restored Their Family]
* [http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/16397-duck-dynasty-patriarch-sounds-off-against-abortion-culture “Duck Dynasty” Patriarch Sounds Off Against Abortion Culture]
* [http://global.christianpost.com/news/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-to-students-without-jesus-evil-always-reigns-102728/#PepyV3FlQDSmu0Lc.99 Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson to Students: Without Jesus, Evil Always Reigns]
* [http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/10/04/duck-dynasty-star-show-adding-fake-bleeps-despite-no-cursing/ 'DUCK DYNASTY' Star Claims Editors Cut Jesus' Name From Prayer At End Of Show]

[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Television]]

==See also==
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Real America]]

==References==
<references/>

Duck Dynasty

2013-12-21T20:03:54Z

Dsherman: /* Censorship */ minor issue corrected

Talk:Conversion therapy

2013-12-21T19:56:14Z

Dsherman:

==Proposed Changes==
In the very near future , I'd like to expand the article to include some more detail of techniques (the article in its current form is not very informative). I'd do it now but it requires research to fully flesh it out complete with citations. I planned to include a detailed list of common techniques and a bit more information on the reasons given why much of the medical community is not in favor of these techniques. My question is....am I allowed to make it as detailed as possible (no matter where the data takes me) or must I follow guidelines to ensure that it is presented in the brightest light possible? --DavidS 14:56, 21 December 2013 (EST)

{{unprotected|29 December 2007|Ed Poor}}
I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 1==

This is flawed citation, '''American Psychiatric Association''', [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reparative_therapy&diff=128816&oldid=122468] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, '''will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.

:Also, we need to distinguish between "[[brainwashing]]" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Murray, I disagree.

:Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am [[intolerance|intollerent]] of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something ''other than what it says'', or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, ''before'' using them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.

::The desire to make the source '''seem''' to say what you want it to say ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the [[Deceit]] talk page is the best example yet. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=126167&oldid=126157] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm] it quickly became obvious ''why'' this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I ''personally'' get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Paul_Wolfowitz Full discussion]). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!

::I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.

::There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.

::I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] Let's be fair about this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can ''personally'' attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::On what grounds? After correcting the citations and mayby few small modifications it should be well sourced and supported claim. To remove it there would need to be some reason. Might you specify one? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 2==

*''the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.''<ref>[http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282 Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda]</ref>
Neither citation, the original ''Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda'', or what it is quoting from, [http://www.narth.com/docs/cases.html Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy], use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:
:*"Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
:*"Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] ''the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens.''" (2001, 83)
:I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a ''prima facie'' impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*''most authorities ''
**Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==
*''the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html</ref>
Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear ==

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have no objections to telling both sides of the RT story. Now, let's see, where's that nice book [[Dr. Laura]] endorsed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Rob, great job discussing it on the talk page. You need to raise the objections to the "theory" from the APA; otherwise it's wrong. Say it's the APA; not "some groups." And remember, it's just a theory ;-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well you can begin straightening out any bogus text and citations you wish to add here on talk before the page gets unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Tell me how your version's better. Mine is more balanced, better organized, and cites more than just sources that support one perspective. So, yours is...? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Read the above three Examples and respond specifically, otherwise it's just trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I fixed your comments as requested. How is yours better than my fixed version?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's what I thought. My version was better. Change it back.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Not Any Scientific Reasoning" ==
You realize there's no scientific basis for calling homosexuality a mental disorder, right? And, assuming ''arguendo'' no evidence for NOT calling it a mental disorder, don't you think it's best to err on the side of declassifying, so as not to offend? And do you not further realize, that "disorder" is a relative term, judged by society's values, et al, not an objective term of art?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Gender identity disorder]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

...which is different than homosexuality in many important elements. And I'm not talking about your hatchet job on that article, I'm talking about this hatchet job.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not what the DSM IV says. [http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
They seem to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for a diagnosis of some, but not sufficient for it. You are aware of the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Who would this diagnosis apply to other than latent or active homosexuals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's draw a Venn Diagram! "Gender identity" seems to be, from the perspective of the article, a ''subset'' of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what your source argues. It does ''not'' argue that "gender identity disorder" = homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Let's qualify my source first. My source is the APA DVM IV. This is the diagnositc manual of psychiatric disorders. All subsidiary pschyotherapists bow and genuflect to this source. It is the textbook of medical conditions and diagnosis. If it's not in here, its not a medical or psychiatric condition. If it is here, it is a profressionaly recognized and treatable psychiatric condition. Would you agree with that characterization, or can you cite a more qualified source than the APA on recognized psychiatric conditions and mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
: I never impugned the quality of your source. I said it doesn't support the equation of gender identity disorder with homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have heard only theological speculation (from lay Christians) about gender identity disorder being related to homosexuality. Feeling that you're the wrong sex tends to lead to cross-dressing. Feeling that you need to unite with the <s>opposite</s> sex leads to homosexuality. The two disorders might be similar, but for our purposes they're distinct enough for separate articles. We need to dig into authors like Socarides, Medinger, Cohen, Schlesinger, Dobson, etc., for solid psychological and religious views. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What an embarassing typo (thinko?) I made! I meant ''unite with the same sex'', of course. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, who, other than a latent or active homosexual, could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sigh, right, your source argues "all gender ID sufferers are gay," not "all gays are gender ID sufferers." Do you understand the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::The diagnosis is, all gender ID sufferers are gay who complain about it. Point being, cancer symptoms are not symptoms of gender ID disorder, whereas homosexual desires are a symptom of the mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The source demonstrates that homosexual desires in ''some'' people are the result of a mental illness, not anything else. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not certain I understand this. You mean the gay gene causes mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::No. I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't understand this issue, so I'll put the logic out in a step by step fashion. Apologies if it seems condescending, but I see no other way.
#Gender ID disorder ''is'' a mental illness
#According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
#Gender ID disorder is ''not'' the "gay gene"
#Not all gay people have gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have Gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have a mental illness.
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*''According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay ''
:Where does it say this, and what language would you propose to clarify it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Not all people with GID are gay, either. The DSM only gives stats for men who were diagnosed in childhood. Of those, 75% as adults are either gay or bisexual, 25% are heterosexual. And Rob, "homosexual desires" are not a symptom of GID. It's about wanting to be the other gender. For example, in kids, one symptom is a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" (p537 of DSM). Sexual desire isn't even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the arguement is, "strong persistent cross-gender identification" refers to something other than homosexuality.[http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yep. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. You have several times linked to the site that lists the DSM diagnostic criteria. Perhaps you could point out where it says that it refers to homosexuality? I can't find anything in my copy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Define "strong persistent cross-gender identification" then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::The feeling that one should be or would rather be the opposite gender. Wanting to take on roles that traditionally belong to the other gender. Often to the point of feeling so uncomfortable with one's gender as to try to pass as the opposite gender, or to have surgery to actually become the other gender. Read the entry again - it says virtually nothing about sexuality at all. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, let's confine this discussion to humans. So this means a man wants to have a baby? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::I guess I missed the point at which non-humans came up. Sure, that would be consistent, though not necessary. And? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So we can rule out [[asexual]]s then. But "strong, persistent cross identification" goes beyond wanting to wear high heals. It deals with sex, either a man wants to have a baby, or woman feels she can impregnate someone, or there is a desire to have sex with members of ones own sex. Would that be fair characterization? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it would be. If a man wishes he could get pregnant, it doesn't follow that it's because he wants to have sex with another man. If it was about sex with another man, why would pregnancy come into it? It's more likely a desire for motherhood (see 2nd para under '''Diagnostic Features'''). It is beyond wanting to wear high heels, but that doesn't make it about sex. It's about (assuming we're talking about a man) wanting to live as a woman, with everything that encompasses. High heels, makeup, etc., are symbols of womanhood. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Adds: There may be a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender but that's peripheral to the definition of GID. And it's more about wanting oneself to be the opposite gender, and therefore be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, if you know what i mean. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So homosexuality enters into the equation. And by definition, this diagnosis could not apply to anyone ''other than'' homosexuals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Then how is it that the symptoms usually fade as childhood goes on, and that 25% are heterosexual by late adolescence? The diagnosis still has nothing to do with whether a person wants to have same-sex sex. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry I missed that stat. It does say men outnumber women who seek sex change operation by a 3/1 ratio. This is an interesting stat, given that nature provides roughly a 50/50 ratio of births, men to women. You'd think, since nature screwed up, the ratios would be somewhat more equal. How do we explain this disequilibria? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There are any number of diseases/disorders which effect one sex more than the other. Nothing particularly unusual about that.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's true. Prostate cancer is extremely rare among women. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It should also be pointed out that individuals diagnosed with gender identity disorder typically also present some form of mental stress because of the identity crisis and subsequent conflict. Many who are homosexual but not diagnosed with the geder identity disorder do not exhibit stress due to their sexual orientation per se, but because of the reactions they observe from others. -Prof0705
:I get it, others are making them sick. Their victim status leads to an illness, or is it the other way around, their illness leads to a victim status not enshrined in law yet? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nature screwed up? I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm glad to see you accepting that homosexuality is biologically determined. Regarding the gender distribution of GID, a reasonable hypothesis is that something about prenatal brain development (eg, hormone levels) was different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually no. I didn't express a personal opinion. I am reciting the theory of science behind both gay gene theory and this diagnosis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I shall list the specific DSM-IV criteria here, and express why they do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals:

:1. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.

"Cross-gender" identification includes but is not limited to the persistent desire to be the opposite sex, or to associate with the opposite sex. This includes for Male-to-Females, makeup, heels, and dresses. While it has been claimed above that it doesn't just cover "wanting to wear heels" in fact, it does, if that desire is sufficiently persistent. In order to meet the criteria for GID however, all criteria must be met. This can also refer to strictly gender roles, which are not necessarily connected to sexual or reproductive habits and behaviors. There are a number of social and cultural differences in the behavior of men and women, and anyone who wishes to fill the gender roles of the opposite gender qualify in this parameter.

The best test for this is to ask a man, "Do you want to be a woman?" and to ask a woman "Do you want to be a man?" A response in the affirmative is a positive indicator for this criterion, a response in the negative is a definitive contra-indication of Gender Identity Disorder.

::What if (a) the person is lying, or (b) the person is incapable of making a rational judgement, or (c) due to social or cultural homophobia the person feels pressure to go along in order to get along, or (d) due to internalized homnophobia, he's in denial? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well then, (a) this presumption can be made of any disease, that's why there is counciling to determine the reasons and appropriateness of treatment. (b) GID is not to be treated in the case of a coinciding medical/psychiatric condition, this means not for people who potentially have multiple personality disorder, or some other psychiatric disorder where treatment would only result in worse results for the patient. In the case of a defense mechanism in response to a sexually tramatic experience, GID is contraindicated. For instance, a girl was raped and as the only way she can resolve the issue psychiatrically on her own, she presumes that she needs to have a gender change. GID, and its therapy is also contraindicated in this event. (c/d) gender identity therapy begins with vetting the patient to ensure that they're not simply distraught with being gay, or some other such reason. Gender therapy begins off immediately with the idea that gender reassignment therapy (which consists of counselling, hormones then surgery over the course of at least one year) should be the last option chosen. If there is anyway for a person with GID to live in their assigned gender, then they are recommended to persue that, and not face the discrimination, and unnecessary nature that would be their treatment. There is also significant interest in ensuring that treatment is only given to those for whom it is appropriate.

:::If the treatment would cause more harm than good, then the treatment is contraindicated. In Iran, I mentioned that transsexuality is accepted, as a result gay, and lesbian people are pressured to change gender in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, this is widely regarded as inappropriate in the western world. If gender reassignment therapy is carried out upon someone who is not transsexual, or significantly transgendered, the situation which they are placed in is just as emotionally and psychiatrically damaging as the situation that you are moving transsexuals out of. As a result, hormones and therapy are denied without approval from an appropriate therapist, and surgery in particular requires the sign off from a Ph.D. This intented to raise the bar sufficiently that anyone doing it on a whim will not be able to do any lasting damage to themselves by lying in order to gain treatment. Therapists are well accustomed to behaviors and stories that indicate a person lying about their experiences of GID. In all cases however, if someone were to simply express that they have homosexual desires, the therapy would '''not''' travel towards treatment, but towards treating that person's discomfort with their homosexuality, whether than means resolving them to their heterosexuality, or having them come to acccept and embrace their homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality alone is immediately a disqualifying factor for treatment and diagnosis of GID. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

While gay men and butch lesbians typically express their gender roles quite broadly, and may take up gender roles typically considered outside of their traditional roles, such as men paying more attention to their looks, clothes, and fashion, and women caring significantly less about it, and acting more physical, reardless, if you ask them "Do you want to be a woman" and "Do you want to be a man?" they will answer in the negative. They are happy with their gender, they're simply attracted to the same sex.

:2. This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.

The person can't have these feelings simply because for instance, a woman wants to "break through the glass ceiling", or a man wants to enjoy having their dates paid for, doors opened for them, etc.

There has to be distinct evidence, that even if changing their gender meant total loss of all advantages that they would still be willing to undergo the change. A good example here would be male to female transsexuals in Iran. As men they have significant advantages, and as women they lose enormous amounts of rights, yet they still change. (Yes, Iran condones gender change, they make it mandatory once approved, and the health care system pays for it.)

:3. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

This is the easiest contra-indication that gays have Gender Identity Disorder. They are quite happy with the sex they're assigned, and feel appropriate in the gender that they live in.

This is quite different from someone suffering from severe stress, and depression over their body being the wrong sex, such to the point that they would consider mutilating it in order to acheive a correction of their body.

:4. The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

"Intersex" means that you're born somewhere in between the genders. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the body does not properly matabolize testosterone) only affects genetic males, and can vary significantly from simply low infertility, through infertility, through ambiguous genitalia, all the way until you reach a female external form, with internalized testes, and significant lack of pubic and ancilliary hair (arm pits). Pubic and ancilliary hair grow as a response to testosterone, and thus, when the body is insensitive to it, it will not grow. In the later case, few people have any idea that anything would be wrong with their daughter until she didn't start her period in a timely manner, and they brought her to her doctor to figure out why. It's estimated that 6% of all cases coming to fertility clinics are because the mother has undiagnosed AIS. The reason AIS only affects males is because women do not have sufficient testosterone to affect their external development anyways.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia only affects females, as it refers to an abnormal amount of testosterone affecting a developing fetus, which results in the genetically female body developing externally down the path of virilization.

There are a slew of other intersex conditions, basically, this criteria is to ensure that GID is only indicated in those who have no known biological reason to have cross-gender feelings.

:5. There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

The most common response to "why did you change to a woman?" by male to female transsexuals is that they came to an impass, and it was either change or commit suicide. The stress upon their life creates severe depression, it can lead to socially abberant behavior, antisocial behavior, and numerous other issues.

Basically, the person cannot be able to function in their current life without therapy to resolve their feelings.

Gay people are normally quite successful, they don't have such odd social behaviors, or psychological stress (to the degree of GID patients) that cause them to really require the necessity to transition. If you ask them, "Would you be able to continue to live your life as your current gender?" their response would be positive, while someone with GID will expressly respond in the negative, stating that if they were unable to change, that they would face catastrophic life consequences, such as suicide, total failure of work life, decent into "uncurable" depression, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why gay people do not typically have GID... the biggest indicator is that they are happy with their life. When lay people get ahold of some DSM criteria, they may not understand the actual meanings and intentions of that text, while even a psychiatrist/psychologist who is not familiar with GID itself would be able to assess the GID criteria, and state blatently, that it would not apply to gays and lesbians. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 15:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so you've made the case why "the vast majority of homosexuals" do not suffer from GID (in the United States). Yet in the [[Gender identity disorder]] article you've stated, "in Iran Gender Identity Disorder is recognized and sex reassignment therapy, and '''surgery is compulsory''', and '''paid for by the state'''." Neither claim is supported by the underlying document you provided. [http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11423] ''In fact,'' the underlying document '''contradicts''' what you have claimed:
:*state health organisation '''may''' also subsidise...
:*...one such theologian ...is even writing a thesis..."Teachers, colleagues and officials from the '''judiciary have been very encouraging towards my thesis'''... We have to differentiate between sex changes and homosexuality."... Kariminia acknowledges that he is under pressure...

:This is a far cry from "surgery is compulsory," as you have claimed. This needs some explanation, or proper sourcing, or you may be blocked from further editing for violating several of CP's core Commandments and Guidelines. Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Widely available sources, and information. Why don't conservatives papers tend to cover this topic? Because they generally take the opinion that transsexuality is homosexuality, and thus a Sin. Another source is http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/15513 I have however altered the "will pay for" section. Although saying that a socialist healthcare system "will pay for a heart transplant" ignores that medical reasons may play a reason why a heart transplant would not be allowed, and thus not covered by the state. Certainly at least saying "The state will pay for approved sex reassignment therapy and surgery" is also a definitively true statement.

::To follow up on your questions regarding compulsory, for legal recognition of your gender, you require surgery, without legal recognition you are legally a male engaging in sexual acts with another male. Legally, that is homosexuality, and homosexuality is punished by death. Therefore, opting to not have surgery, will keep you legally your original gender, and thus a homosexual. Simple and clear extension of legal fact. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good. I think you've come close to putting your finger on the point. This subheading, for example, is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning," you proceeded to make a lengthy and rather thoughtful exposition about how GID is not necessarily the same as homosexuality, and how DVM doesn't consider it homosexuality a disease ''or'' disorder. Fine. We know all that. This appeared to be really very scientifically based and keeping with the topic under this subhead questioning "scientific reasoning." Ok, fine. Then your next edit to mainspace appears highly ideological, and politically motivated, what I would refer to as [[activism]]. That has little to do with the ongoing discussion of the science. Then, in what would appear suspiciously motivated circumstances, you make various claims to a mainspace article regarding social policy and Islamic law unsupported by an illusory source. All this does not look good, and I hope you can understand our concerns.

:::Bottomline is, we are not a propaganda mouthpiece for disinformation. Subtley in any context will be meticulously reviewed. Mixing a poltical agenda with science, which either misquotes or misinterprets the underlying science, or conversely uses junk science to push activism, I personally am rather disposed to prevent. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== The purpose of Exodus International and Reparative Therapy in their eyes ==

::::The mainspace edit was not politically motivated, but rather truthfully motivated. Not all reparative therapy sucesses end with "I'm a heterosexual now." Rather, the goal of reparative therapy is to correct homosexual behavior, and have the people overcome that. That still leaves the option of the person going to asexuality, and celebacy as an alternative to heterosexuality, and bisexuality.

::::Being that the article specifically is addressing Exodus International, let's use their words exactly:: "What is Exodus? Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/

::::The purpose and intend of Exodus International is to "help practicing homosexuals to overcome their homosexual desires." Not the further goal of ensuring that everyone who successfully goes through it is heterosexual at the end. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well again, you appear to be on some sort of mission, or other. This mainspace page is entitled "Reparative Therapy." You have placed a description of an organization about its primary mission, and not what the organization says about Reparative therapy. What Exodus International ''in fact'' says about Reparative Therapy, (and not itself which is what you are using to define Reparative Therapy), is,

:::::''reparative therapy — a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction — can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind.''...
:::::Frankly, at this point, it now appears you've gone from using a biased journalist with ''Agencie France Presse'' as a source for statements that the jounralist himself never reported on, to alleging a "Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning." [http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/]
:::::I would suggest you get off this track you're attempting to pursue. Contrary to many stereotypes, many Christians are not fools and idiots. Many of us are very familiar dealing with the types of distortions and disinformation you are attempting to place here, and have had decades of experience dealing with it. It is just not going to work. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, it went off topic, I've now split the two discussions, so that it no longer appears that Exodus International is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning". In fact, I make no such claim at all. Reparative therapy can be a good thing in many cases.

My desire in my mainspace edit was simply to note that Exodus International and Reparative Therapy, even as you present their statement, do not make people heterosexual, they make them non-homosexual. This allows for celibacy and asexuality, of which the later's existince you have acknowledged. I am not trying to "push an agenda" here, and I understand that you would see my actions as some sort of mission. Which I sort of am, my mission is for the truth.

I *am* a Christian, and I know we're not fools. But certainly you wouldn't call an apple purple when it's red... If the goal of reparative therapy is to help an individual overcome their homosexuality, that is not the same as making them heterosexual. It also includes making them asexual. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. ==

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy? ==

What other groups besides the APA reject Reparative therapy? [[User:Danbarker|Danbarker]] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Off the top of my head, the other APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) and the American Medical Association. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:And after a quick search, the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think we've covered this ground. These groups all follow the lead taken by the American Psychiatric Assoc. None of them go contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for answering the question. The American Psychological Association came first, actually, 1990 vs 1998. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's not the issue. The issue is over what the diagnosis of the illness is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Umm, ''What'' "illness"? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, we've been having discussion on several pages over varius diagnosis. [[Gender identity disorder]] is one, [[Homophobia]] is another. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)Oh, okay, for this article I'd guess you'd being thinking of something along the lines of ''Sexual orientation dysphoria''. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct. The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Not sure what you mean. Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It's an issue of sourcing. There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc. These controversies need to be articulated. What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy. That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources. Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That's ridiculous. On what basis? Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question is over a medical diagnosis. American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc. No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions. They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda. This is well known and has been occurring for decades. And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed. There are other factors as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it. And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction? You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned. Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis. It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets. It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow. The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them. Who knows. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because it's a medical diagnosis. Name one other instance where pschyologists recognize as a mental illness that the field of psychiatry does not. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers weren't enough.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because even if the entire Catholic Church said the Earth is stationary, it would not make Galileo's defense of the Copernican system of "planets revolving around the Sun" any less true. Citing scientific bodies is a political strategy, same as the [[anthropogenic global warming]] advocates citing the "scientific consensus" of the UN assessment (see [[IPCC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor's recent edits. ==

Recently Ed Poor made the edit of removing: "'''Reparative Therapy''' is the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice." That's a very clearly POV edit, as the sentence following and describing Reparative Therapy is accurate, and factual. That is unless, and only unless it can be shown that there exists a Reparative Therapy method that does not rely upon religious tenants.

There is now a very strong bias on this page against Reparative Therapy. Not only does the last section criticize Reparative Therapy, but the first quote in the first section biasedly criticizes Reparative Therapy.

The edits to the first section are simply unacceptable from an accurate and factual point of view. If the first quote should be kept, then it should be placed in the section "Misinformation about reparative therapy" which first of all is entirely biased simply by the language.

Would someone PLEASE revert these edits, they're entirely unacceptable.(except the changing to the reflist template.) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It occurs to me that perhaps Ed Poor's edits were at the behest of someone else. In either case, the edits are inappropriate. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:It's better to refer to the content of the editor, rather than the name of the editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Arguments of opponents==
Cut from article:

*Opponents of reparative therapy characterize it as the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection and claim that it is based on the idea that [[Homosexuality and choice|homosexuality is a choice]].

*[[Richard Cohen]] says in rebuttal, "No one chooses to have same-sex desires."

We need to distinguish between PR campaigns which put words in people's mouths or otherwise distort their positions - and arguments which correctly state a position and then rebut it. The two sentences above confuse the issue (a typical [[gay agenda]] tactic).

There are two main anti-homosexuality views, the religious and the psychological:
*Religious people stress the effectiveness of prayer, even to the exclusion of therapy. They also emphasize the role of choice (see [[free will]]) in regard to sexual acts.
*Psychologists tend to ignore prayer entirely, or to give it merely a supporting role in therapy.

Both schools of thought recommend reflection. A homosexual needs to consider what he gets from maintaining his condition: for example, is homosexuality making him happy or unhappy in the present? What are the longterm consequences? Would a course of prayer and/or therapy be helpful? (No one says, "Just do it.") --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Excellent summary of opponent's approach==

----
Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mystery%3AWhere_is_Hell%3F&diff=628725&oldid=628667 here], but the substance follows. {{cquote|Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the [http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide] in the victims of this treatment ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch see?]). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking. You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/07/the-horrific-evils-of-reparative-therapy-and-its-unsurprising-adherents/ read the facts] on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)}}
An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)
----

I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the [[gay rights movement]]. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that [[homosexuality]] is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "[[gay gene]]" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.

But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)

What makes you think that the '''only''' [[scientific study|scientific studies]] had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out [[NARTH]]. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives [[Unification Church|my own church]] a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of [[sin]].

Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "[[negligent homicide]]". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.

I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote [[authorities]] who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
:Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
:You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study grave errors pointed out] by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
:I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever ''met'' anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Will science examine the issue?==

The primary argument '''against''' reparative therapy seems to be that no unbiased organization supports it. This is not a scientific argument, but a political one.

Science proves something is harmful (or useless) by running actual experiments, not by taking opinion polls or citing authorities.

Lucius's example of (supposedly) meeting '''one''' person is flawed:
#One case is never sufficient. Several hundred is considered a minimum study size.
#The "treatment" is merely a parody of RT - a program filled with coercion, which is not which RT is.

We need a better description of RT. We need to describe the public relations campaign against it, which as my encounter with LuciusF shows, is mainly a smear campaign.

Most of all, we need to summarize the scientific studies of RT, even if only its supporters have studied it.

The refusal of opponents to take a look at something is '''by no means''' evidence that it's flawed, but more likely an indication of the opponents' anti-scientific [[bias]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:39, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Timothy McVeigh

2013-12-19T17:42:06Z

Dsherman: Agnosticism is not a form of atheism. It can be but not always. There is such thing as Agnostic Theism. They're people who believe in God but do not claim to know God exists. So it's not accurate

[[Image:Mcveighmugshot.jpg|right|145px|thumb]]
'''Timothy McVeigh''' was the main perpetrator in the [[Oklahoma City Bombing]] on April 19, 1995, which killed 168 people in the worst act of domestic terrorism in American history. He was pulled over that afternoon by Lieutenant Charles Hanger for driving without a license plate, and arrested after Lt. Hanger found an unregistered firearm in his car. <ref>http://www.nleomf.com/TheFund/programs/OOM/hanger_oct01.htm</ref>
McVeigh was a veteran of [[Operation Desert Storm]]. Contrary to the popular and oft-repeated belief among liberals and atheists, McVeigh was not a right-wing evangelical Christian. In fact, McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic, but professed agnosticism.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4</ref> His political beliefs were [[libertarian]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: McVeigh, Timothy}}

[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]

Duck Dynasty

2013-12-19T04:30:15Z

Dsherman:

Talk:Atheism and rape

2013-12-12T18:26:47Z

Dsherman:

==Atheist Offers No Condemnation Of Rape....and neither does theism==
Well of course it doesn't, it's not a religion. It's a broad camp with multiple and varying philosophies. Believe it not, theism offers no condemnation either. All you need to be a theist is believe in god(s), no structure is needed to be a theist. Christianity, Islam, Judism, are merely sub-sects of theism. You have a better case to condemn those who are irreligious. That's not the same as atheism; but you can make a case that the irreligious are without moral guidance as there are plenty of atheists who take non-divine sources as moral guidance. There are atheistic religions (like Buddhism, Anton LaVey's Church Of Satan, atheistic Christianity) just as there are irreligious theists (Deists). --[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 13:25, 12 December 2013 (EST)

Wow...so two atheists are complete jackwads and this allows you to tar anyone who doesn't believe in your almight sky daddy. wtg [[User:SterlingMaloryArcher|SterlingMaloryArcher]] 20:41, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Why does TheAmazingAtheist still have over 280,000 subscribers? Is the Freedom From Religion Foundation merely a shadow of its former shelf post [[Dan Barker]]'s statements? Why is there not a single piece of negative information on Dan Barker's [[Wikipedia]] page?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker] Where is the negative reporting of Dan Barker on this [http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Dan_Barker atheist/skeptic wiki]? Of course, this is easy to explain. Atheists love their [[sin]] and hate God. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::Addendum: Given your lack of response, I suggest you read [http://devigirsang.blogspot.com/2009/03/favorite-quotes-from-great-debaters.html THIS] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:06, 16 February 2012 (EST)

== atheist moral relativism vs. the Bible ==

Of course atheists assert there are no absolutes in morality. They reject out of hand the one source of absolutes in morality on this and every other subject, namely, the Bible. This fact cannot be emphasized enough, in my opinion. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Seriously?! ==

This is just getting silly now. I am an atheist, in so much as I reject the notion of deities, and yet I condemn rape. I can do this without 'borrowing from the judeo-christian world-view' too. I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans.

The means by which I can arrive at this morality requires no fear of Hell, and when I don't rape someone as I pass them by in the street, it's not because I fear the wrath of an all powerful God or a burning lake of sulfur for all eternity, but because I have no desire to cause suffering, and, quite frankly, I wouldn't enjoy it. The world-view to which this article refers is in fact borrowed from Buddhism anyway, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself' is really just a long-winded means of referring to Karma, derived in something like 600 BCE.

'''This article implies that the only reason Christians do not rape people is because of a fear of God. So, if God was somehow proven to not exist, all previous Christians would then go on a lovely little rape spree, now that God won't be punishing them?'''

(The notion that Christians are less likely to rape than atheists is also ridiculous. Another article ([[Decline of atheism]]) states that only 2% of the world are atheists. Statistically, the VAST MAJORITY of rapists must be religious, and given Christianity is the largesr religion, it should have the greatest share of rapes).

I could go on justifying my point, I could point to Lott offering his virgin daughter up for rape in order to save Gabriel (who, as an Angel, is MORE than capable of taking care of himself. As powerful as 1000 roman legions, or something like that?), and numerous other stories such as this in that lovely tomb of morality than is the Bible.... but I think these comments will be largely ignored.

I challenge someone to justify this article in light of my comments above. The article is offensive, ludicrous, poorly cited, and draws widespread conclusions from a sample of TWO individuals. COME ON. I know your all very religious, but that doesn't mean you've lost your ability for critical thought (I should know. I'm a born-again atheist).
::I too reject the idea of deities since there is one and only one God. Secondly, you didn't show why this system of morality is valid: "I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans." Where is the basis of the ought? Lastly, atheism does not have a good historical track record when it comes to morality and the issue of violence: [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and sadism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I wanted to add that I do thank you for your input and I added a Rebecca Watson quote as a result to the article (claim of hundreds of cases of harassment). Also, it is true that atheists claims concerning the Bible involving poor Bible exegesis are largely ignored and not taken seriously. See this article: [http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html Why critics of the Bible do not deserve the benefit of the doubt]. Again, thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: I have read that article, it relates to those claiming contradictions. I am not claiming there is a contradiction in the Bible, I don't want to have that tired old debate. I read the bible as a believer, many times. It was the content of the old testament that led me to conclude that it was fallacious, as I could not find any reasonable interpretation of so many things. I believe you have to interpret it from a literalist perspective, and that appears to be the consensus on Conservapedia. On that basis, there is very little room for interpretation. I wasn't making any interpretation of the text, simply stating the content of the story. So, my question to you is this - how could I be misinterpreting this story if we are to believe it is the literal truth?

:::: The harassment Rebecca Watson received is unfortunate, but is it any different from the harassment of just about everyone by the Westboro Baptist Church? (As an example)

:::: Moreover, atheism is the absence of a belief, and not a belief system in and of itself. On this basis, the opening sentences make no sense from a purely semantic view point. How can an absence of believe ever provide condemnation of anything? It would be better to put 'some non-christian belief systems offer no condemnation of rape' if you were going to replace that drivel with anything! This is a particularly pertinent point, because it is quite easy to derive senseless criticism of atheism if you treat it as a religion. Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.

:::: Finally, I have made some constructive edits. Now, I find the edit button has mysteriously disappeared. This really isn't the interest of honest discourse, is it? Reverting changes you dislike is one thing, but to prevent any future edits is fairly censorial. I haven't said anything unreasonable. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 14:36, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and rape

2013-12-12T18:25:28Z

Dsherman:

==Atheist Offers No Condemnation Of Rape==
Well of course it doesn't, it's not a religion. It's a broad camp with multiple and varying philosophies. Believe it not, theism offers no condemnation either. All you need to be a theist is believe in god(s), no structure is needed to be a theist. Christianity, Islam, Judism, are merely sub-sects of theism. You have a better case to condemn those who are irreligious. That's not the same as atheism; but you can make a case that the irreligious are without moral guidance as there are plenty of atheists who take non-divine sources as moral guidance. There are atheistic religions (like Buddhism, Anton LaVey's Church Of Satan, atheistic Christianity) just as there are irreligious theists (Deists). --[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 13:25, 12 December 2013 (EST)

Wow...so two atheists are complete jackwads and this allows you to tar anyone who doesn't believe in your almight sky daddy. wtg [[User:SterlingMaloryArcher|SterlingMaloryArcher]] 20:41, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Why does TheAmazingAtheist still have over 280,000 subscribers? Is the Freedom From Religion Foundation merely a shadow of its former shelf post [[Dan Barker]]'s statements? Why is there not a single piece of negative information on Dan Barker's [[Wikipedia]] page?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker] Where is the negative reporting of Dan Barker on this [http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Dan_Barker atheist/skeptic wiki]? Of course, this is easy to explain. Atheists love their [[sin]] and hate God. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::Addendum: Given your lack of response, I suggest you read [http://devigirsang.blogspot.com/2009/03/favorite-quotes-from-great-debaters.html THIS] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:06, 16 February 2012 (EST)

== atheist moral relativism vs. the Bible ==

Of course atheists assert there are no absolutes in morality. They reject out of hand the one source of absolutes in morality on this and every other subject, namely, the Bible. This fact cannot be emphasized enough, in my opinion. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Seriously?! ==

This is just getting silly now. I am an atheist, in so much as I reject the notion of deities, and yet I condemn rape. I can do this without 'borrowing from the judeo-christian world-view' too. I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans.

The means by which I can arrive at this morality requires no fear of Hell, and when I don't rape someone as I pass them by in the street, it's not because I fear the wrath of an all powerful God or a burning lake of sulfur for all eternity, but because I have no desire to cause suffering, and, quite frankly, I wouldn't enjoy it. The world-view to which this article refers is in fact borrowed from Buddhism anyway, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself' is really just a long-winded means of referring to Karma, derived in something like 600 BCE.

'''This article implies that the only reason Christians do not rape people is because of a fear of God. So, if God was somehow proven to not exist, all previous Christians would then go on a lovely little rape spree, now that God won't be punishing them?'''

(The notion that Christians are less likely to rape than atheists is also ridiculous. Another article ([[Decline of atheism]]) states that only 2% of the world are atheists. Statistically, the VAST MAJORITY of rapists must be religious, and given Christianity is the largesr religion, it should have the greatest share of rapes).

I could go on justifying my point, I could point to Lott offering his virgin daughter up for rape in order to save Gabriel (who, as an Angel, is MORE than capable of taking care of himself. As powerful as 1000 roman legions, or something like that?), and numerous other stories such as this in that lovely tomb of morality than is the Bible.... but I think these comments will be largely ignored.

I challenge someone to justify this article in light of my comments above. The article is offensive, ludicrous, poorly cited, and draws widespread conclusions from a sample of TWO individuals. COME ON. I know your all very religious, but that doesn't mean you've lost your ability for critical thought (I should know. I'm a born-again atheist).
::I too reject the idea of deities since there is one and only one God. Secondly, you didn't show why this system of morality is valid: "I take a libertarian position in that any act is admissible that is consensual between all parties involved and does not harm another human, or cause unnecessary suffering to non-humans." Where is the basis of the ought? Lastly, atheism does not have a good historical track record when it comes to morality and the issue of violence: [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and sadism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I wanted to add that I do thank you for your input and I added a Rebecca Watson quote as a result to the article (claim of hundreds of cases of harassment). Also, it is true that atheists claims concerning the Bible involving poor Bible exegesis are largely ignored and not taken seriously. See this article: [http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html Why critics of the Bible do not deserve the benefit of the doubt]. Again, thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: I have read that article, it relates to those claiming contradictions. I am not claiming there is a contradiction in the Bible, I don't want to have that tired old debate. I read the bible as a believer, many times. It was the content of the old testament that led me to conclude that it was fallacious, as I could not find any reasonable interpretation of so many things. I believe you have to interpret it from a literalist perspective, and that appears to be the consensus on Conservapedia. On that basis, there is very little room for interpretation. I wasn't making any interpretation of the text, simply stating the content of the story. So, my question to you is this - how could I be misinterpreting this story if we are to believe it is the literal truth?

:::: The harassment Rebecca Watson received is unfortunate, but is it any different from the harassment of just about everyone by the Westboro Baptist Church? (As an example)

:::: Moreover, atheism is the absence of a belief, and not a belief system in and of itself. On this basis, the opening sentences make no sense from a purely semantic view point. How can an absence of believe ever provide condemnation of anything? It would be better to put 'some non-christian belief systems offer no condemnation of rape' if you were going to replace that drivel with anything! This is a particularly pertinent point, because it is quite easy to derive senseless criticism of atheism if you treat it as a religion. Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.

:::: Finally, I have made some constructive edits. Now, I find the edit button has mysteriously disappeared. This really isn't the interest of honest discourse, is it? Reverting changes you dislike is one thing, but to prevent any future edits is fairly censorial. I haven't said anything unreasonable. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 14:36, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Roger Williams

2013-11-30T20:38:26Z

Dsherman:

'''Roger Williams''' (1603-1683) was the founder of the colony of [[Rhode Island]] and a promoter of a strict separation between church and state. He opposed any preference by government of one religion over another, or any interference by a [[magistrate]] into religious matters.

Roger Williams was born in [[London]] and worked under the great English jurist Sir [[Edward Coke]]. Williams knew the famous [[Puritan]] [[Oliver Cromwell]] in England, but Williams had non-conformist religious views that caused him to leave England for [[Boston]] in 1631. Williams disagreed with the Anglican Puritans, who wanted to remain in the Church of England, and he moved to the [[Plymouth Colony]], which wanted to separate from the [[Church of England]]. Williams soon fought with them because he felt that ownership of land did not come from the king, but required direct purchase from [[Native Americans|Indians]].

In 1636 the Puritans in England banished Williams due to his non-conformist views, and he founded the city of [[Providence]], Rhode Island as a haven for all religions that were being denied freedom of religious speech elsewhere. Williams personally remained a [[Calvinist]]. He could speak the language of the Indians and was friendly with them, though he defended Rhode Island against [[King Philip's War]]. Williams himself earned a living based on farming and trading.

==Wall Of Separation==

Although often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the concept of a wall of separation between state and religion can be found within Williams' writing:

When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World. ("Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, Volume 1, page 108 (1644))<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/SeparationCommunistPlot.html</ref>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Williams, Roger}}
[[Category:New England]]
[[Category:Puritans]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[category:Religion and Politics]]

Roger Williams

2013-11-30T20:37:52Z

Dsherman:

'''Roger Williams''' (1603-1683) was the founder of the colony of [[Rhode Island]] and a promoter of a strict separation between church and state. He opposed any preference by government of one religion over another, or any interference by a [[magistrate]] into religious matters.

Roger Williams was born in [[London]] and worked under the great English jurist Sir [[Edward Coke]]. Williams knew the famous [[Puritan]] [[Oliver Cromwell]] in England, but Williams had non-conformist religious views that caused him to leave England for [[Boston]] in 1631. Williams disagreed with the Anglican Puritans, who wanted to remain in the Church of England, and he moved to the [[Plymouth Colony]], which wanted to separate from the [[Church of England]]. Williams soon fought with them because he felt that ownership of land did not come from the king, but required direct purchase from [[Native Americans|Indians]].

In 1636 the Puritans in England banished Williams due to his non-conformist views, and he founded the city of [[Providence]], Rhode Island as a haven for all religions that were being denied freedom of religious speech elsewhere. Williams personally remained a [[Calvinist]]. He could speak the language of the Indians and was friendly with them, though he defended Rhode Island against [[King Philip's War]]. Williams himself earned a living based on farming and trading.

==Wall Of Separation==

Although often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the concept of a wall of separation between state and religion can be found within Williams' writing:

When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World. ("Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, Volume 1, page 108 (1644))<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/SeparationCommunistPlot.htm</ref>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Williams, Roger}}
[[Category:New England]]
[[Category:Puritans]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[category:Religion and Politics]]

Talk:Robert Mugabe

2013-11-29T01:00:24Z

Dsherman:

I changed "president" to "repressive dictator" to make this entry more in line with this site's commandments. That's what we did for Hugo Chavez, after all. ([[User:PolyPartisan|PolyPartisan]] 20:00, 15 December 2007 (EST))

lol, sometimes vandalism is funny--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 20:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

: Can we upload a picture of Mugabe? Here is a good source

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=080131-F-1644L-121&JPGPath=/JCCC/Still/2008/Air_Force/080131-F-1644L-121.JPG

--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:46, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:The link is dead but here is another source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Mugabe,_12th_AU_Summit,_090202-N-0506A-417.jpg Can someone upload it please? --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 09:37, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

==Comments On Homosexuality==

Would any addition on his anti-gay comments be removed? The personal views on the issue aren't really relevant but in this case there's talk of beheadings and derogatory language that makes Conservapedia look Log-Cabin Republican Convention by comparison. --[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 20:00, 28 November 2013 (EST)

Robert Mugabe

2013-11-29T00:54:45Z

Dsherman: redundancy removed

{{Dictator bio
| image =
| name =Robert Mugabe
| birth =February 21, 1924 Masvingo
| parents =
| religion =Roman Catholicism
| education =University of Fort Hare
| spouse =Sally Francesca Hayfron Grace Mugabe
| children =-
| death =-
| deathmanner =-
| burial =-
| country =Zimbabwe
| military =n/a
| rank =n/a
| polbeliefs =Socialism
| party =Zimbabwe African National Union
| dictatordate =1987
| war =-
| deathnumber =-
}}
'''Robert Mugabe''' has been the repressive dictator of [[Zimbabwe]] since December 31, 1987. Zimbabwe was previously a [[British]] colony, Southern Rhodesia, and a shortlived Republic, known as [[Rhodesia]]. <ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html</ref> He violently oppresses anyone who opposes his government. He has cracked down on dissidents and violently seized farms- seizures that led to much of the land becoming desolate as those who took the land knew about guns, not farming. A black nationalist, he eventually established one-party rule in his country, becoming Executive President of Zimbabwe in 1987 with his [[Marxism|Marxist]] "Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front" (ZANU-PF).<ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9054151/Robert-Mugabe</ref>

In his 27 years in power, he has gone from the poster boy for the "New [[Africa]]", ruled by educated, democratic leaders, to the bottom of the heap. Under his rule the health and well-being of his people have dropped dramatically, with his arbitrary arrests and torture of anyone considered to be an opponent. According to the [[World Health Organization]], Zimbabwe has the world’s shortest life expectancy - 37 years for men and 34 for women. It also has the greatest percentage of orphans, about 25%, says [[UNICEF]], and the worst annual inflation rate. Mugabe last won a "free" election in 2002 but “won” only after having his leading opponent arrested for treason. Mugabe attempted to oust Morgan Tsvangirai from the political scene in 2008, however he failed and Mugabe lost to Tsvangirai, but refused to step down. The Zimbabwe parliament has forced Mugabe to accept Tsvangirai as his Prime Minister, a post Mugabe previously removed. {{who says}}

== Rise to Power ==

Mugabe came into power after being one of the rebel leaders who fought against Rhodesia's white government. The various rebel groups, although not neccessarily ZANU, were given training, arms and political support by [[China]], the [[Soviet Union]], [[East Germany]], [[North Korea]], [[Mozambique]], [[Tanzania]], [[Cuba]], [[Libya]], [[Ethiopia]] and the Communist Party of Great Britain. The [[UK]] and the [[UN]] did nothing, as [[Ian Smith]], the Rhodesian government leader, had done absolutely nothing to endear himself to the world. Indeed, when faced with the prospect of having to grant equal rights and representation to the country's black citizens, he had responded by unilaterally declaring independence from [[Great Britain]]. Eventually, the British did step in and negotiated the Lancaster House agreement, which brought full democracy to Zimbabwe. Mugabe won the subsequent election - which was free and fair - by some margin, thus beginning his rule over the country.

Similar to many dictators Robert Mugabe has a personality cult. Nearly every major city and villiage in Zimbabwe contains a Mugabe road. Many Schools that had distinctly western names were changed to Robert Mugabe Acadamy or similar variations. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4968520.stm</ref>

== Policy ==

Although nominally Marxist, Mugabe's policies are best described as the policies of extreme self-interest, where everything and anything goes as long as it serves to preserve his grip on power. The democratic process has been reduced to a farce by ballot stuffing and voter intimidation, his redistribution of land from farmers to his cronies and supporters has resulted in disastrously low harvest, and his refusal to accept aid, advice or criticism from outside have led to a cholera epidemic and an annual inflation rate of approximately 516,000,000,000,000,000,000%<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3451873/Zimbabwe-inflation-second-worst-in-history.html</ref>. Violence and fear have become ingrained into everyday life in the country, and all who oppose him are tarred with the tag of subversives and dealt with in brutal fashion.

== Fast Facts ==

*Date of Birth: 21/02/1924
*Place of Birth: Kutama Mission, Zvimba
*Country of Residence: Zimbabwe
*Nationality: Zimbabwean
*Father's Name: Gabriel Mugabe
*Mother's Name: Bona Shonhiwa
*Spouse's Name: Grace Marufu
*Marriage Date: 00/08/1996
*Children: 2 sons, 1 daughter
*School: Kutuma Mission School
*Son of a village carpenter
*Trained as a teacher in a [[Roman Catholic]] mission.

== Education ==

*Bachelor of Arts University of Fort Hare Education 1951
*Bachelor of Science University of London - UOL Economics
*Master of Science University of South Africa Economics
*Bachelor of Law University of South Africa
*Master of Laws University of South Africa
*Bachelor of Administration University of South Africa
*Bachelor of Education University of South Africa
<ref>http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/Pages/profilefull.aspx?IndID=3562</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mugabe, Robert}}

[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Africa]]
[[Category:Marxism]]

Heavy metal music

2013-11-28T05:58:20Z

Dsherman: /* Criticism */

'''Heavy metal''' is a musical genre that was developed mainly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, heavy metal is primarily noted for an emphasis on distortion, palm muting, aggressive lyrical content, bass-heavy sounds, as well as the influence of blues scales and classical structures. Heavy Metal has also spawned numerous sub genres which omit or improve upon standard technique, or invent new one altogether, giving heavy metal as a genre an impressive variety of styles and sounds. Heavy metal's origins are both rooted in the cultural upheavals that occurred during the 1960s, such as the conflict in Vietnam and the reevaluation and mass rejection of previous social schema, and the enormous influence of bands such as [[The Jimi Hendrix Experience]], [[Led Zeppelin]], [[Iron Butterfly]], and [[Black Sabbath]] that are regarded as proto-metal as well as hard rock. Other musical influences include psychedelic rock, blues rock, and the still developing progressive rock genre. Though heavy metal initially borrowed heavily from the blues in terms of playing style, this was later largely discarded by future metal acts such as [[Judas Priest]].

The first style of rock which grew from this was distorted [[blues]] sound created by [[San Francisco]] based [[psychedelia]] band, '''Blue Cheer''', whose influence on electric blues bands could be seen from [[Cream (rock band)|Cream]] to [[Jimi Hendrix]] to '''ZZ Top'''. The second style was [[progressive rock]], which in 1968 was led by [[England|English]] band '''King Crimson''', combining jazz, classical, experimental, psychedelic and folk music. The precursor to this sound was [[The Beatles]], arguably the first band to leave the standard rock format, creating longer song structures, many of which were narrative or [[opera|neo-operatic]]. This was the main inspiration for later bands such as '''Camel''', [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] and [[Yes (band)|Yes]].

By 1969, the influence of these seminal artists had saturated those parts of the public consciousness which were focused on rock music as a developing art form, and contributed to the explosion of hard rock by, for example, [[Led Zeppelin]] and [[Deep Purple]] and the so-called "proto-metal" of '''Black Sabbath'''. This year is now seen as the watershed moment in the development of what soon became heavy metal.

Black Sabbath originally began as an electric blues outfit named "Earth", but after discovering there was already a band using that name, changed to Black Sabbath after the 1964 [[Boris Karloff]] movie of the same name. Developing a new sound that was born both out of a change in attitude and the loss of lead Guitarist Tony Iommi's finger tips, Black Sabbath are largely credited with developing the more heavily distorted and crunchy elements that later became staples of the heavy metal style.

==1970s==
In 1973 the leading exponents of heavy metal were undoubtedly Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath, each having a technical prowess and a compositional inventiveness unseen before in mainstream popular music. This era also marked the beginnings of [[Satanism|Satanic]] imagery and of the spectacular, energetic live shows which became a hallmark of later heavy metal spin offs. Led Zeppelin's [[guitar|guitarist]] Jimmy Page had a strong personal fascination with the [[occult]], while many of Black Sabbath's lyrics dealt with it as well. Unlike many future bands, however, Black Sabbath never claimed to be Satanic. Singer Ozzy Osbourne claims that they were actually looking for a way to tap into the success and popularity of the horror genre, where people willingly paid to see a movie or read a novel intended solely to frighten them; to do so, they began to purposely write dark, ominous songs in an attempt to be music's answer to horror films.

Live shows were becoming bigger and more theatrical, notably Led Zeppelin's "rock till you drop" performances lasting two hours, and Alice Cooper's colossal shows following in the American tradition of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, promising "The Greatest Show On Earth". Cooper's shows featured [[boa]] constrictors, horrific freak-show mannequins, and dramatic fake-beheading scenes. Other key artists that emerged at this time included High Tide, Black Cat Bones, Black Widow, Uriah Heep, UFO and Blue Oyster Cult, and glam rockers Kiss. Each of the four members of Kiss took the on-stage persona of a cartoon-like character using elaborate face make-up and a science fiction style clothing. Another American band, Aerosmith, took the basic R 'n' B and rock 'n' roll structures of bands such as the Faces and Rolling Stones and transformed them into a new harder form. The late 70s saw a decline in the popularity of heavy metal, as the Punk movement, beginning in 1976, dominated the musical counterculture.

==1980s==
During the 1970s four British bands were formed that would arguably become the most dramatically influential of the genre during the 1980s: [[Def Leppard]], [[Iron Maiden]], [[Judas Priest]] and [[Motorhead]]. The 1980s also gave rise to the American thrash metal movement with notable bands being [[Anthrax]], [[Metallica]] and its offshoot, [[Megadeth]] and [[Slayer]]. During the 1980s [[Glam Metal]] also became very popular with bands including [[Motley Crue]], [[Ratt]], [[Bon Jovi]], [[Twisted Sister]] and [[Stryper]].

==1990s==
The advent of Grunge in the early 90s is seen as the end of Glam Metal dominance. Nirvana's 'Nevermind' caused widespread public interest in alternative forms of music. [[Groove Metal]] became popular with Pantera's 'Cowboys from Hell' and Sepultura's 'Chaos AD'. The normally marginalized sub-genres of metal, that began forming in the early to mid 80s, soon enjoyed much wider exposure. [[Black Metal]], especially in the Scandinavian countries, began to see a huge rise in popularity<ref>fact</ref>. [[Marduk]], [[Mayhem]], and [[Burzum]] were see at the forefront of the early black metal scene, and continued to see popularity due to the controversies that surrounded the bands, such as Marduk's fascination with the Third Reich and anti-christian lyrical content; the murder of Mayhem's lead guitarist Euronymous by Burzum's Varg Vikernes, as well as the lyrical content and album themes of everything post 'Deathcrush'.

==Criticism==

Due to its association with the counter culture movement and the more extreme forms that it has taken over the years, heavy metal has faced criticism from parents groups, school administrators, politicians, music critics, and religious organizations.

A musicologist wrote:

:The development of heavy metal music in the '60s and its continuing popularity through the '70s, '80s, and '90s coincides, for one thing, with the period of the greatest popularity horror films and books have ever known. Both mark a transitional moment in our history: the end of Pax Americana; new economic crises; de-industrialization, the decline of unions and the rise of low-pay service jobs; revelations of corrupt leadership; powerful social movements challenging dominant policies on race, gender, ecology, and consumer rights; new challenges to the stability of social institutions such as the family; and redefinitions of political themes such as freedom. Much of the culture of the past twenty years has functioned to restore the sense of security undermined by these disruptions. Heavy metal, like horror films, has provided ways of producing meaning in an irrational society. <ref>[http://www.superseventies.com/stairway.html Dr. Robert Walser, Professor of Musicology, Dartmouth College] - author of ''Running With the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music''</ref>

Heavy metal music has been known to glamorize anti-Christian practices such as Satanism, homosexuality, promiscuity, Nazizm<ref>[[Black Metal#National Socialist Black Metal|National Socialist Black Metal]]</ref>, drug abuse, occultism, and bestiality. Despite this, there are bands with all of the musical characteristics of heavy metal--fast drums, distorted guitars, screamed or growled vocals, that put forth a Christian message. This genre is known as [[Christian metal]], and is also sometimes referred to as White metal or unblack metal.

Popular artists who do not perform Christian music but are Christians personally include Zakk Wylde (guitarist for Ozzy Osbourne, and leader of Black Label Society), Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent, Rob Halford (Judas Priest),Tom Araya (lead singer of Slayer) and Dave Mustaine (Megadeth).

==Fans==
Despite the genre's criticism, studies of fans of heavy metal are surprisingly gentle and easy-going. One such study compared heavy metal fans to fans of classical music, observing that they were quite similar in that they were creative and at ease but not outgoing<ref>[http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/09/study-country-f/ Study: Country Fans Work Hard, Metal Fans Are Gentle]</ref>. At concerts fans are generally respectful of and look after one another.

==Etymology==
The term was first used in a musical context by [[Canada|Canadian]] rock band Steppenwolf in their 1968 hit record<ref>Billboard Hot 100 singles chart: highest position #2</ref> "Born To Be Wild," which featured the line: "I like smoke and lightning, heavy metal thunder..." The song received worldwide exposure the following year when it was used in the soundtrack of the 1969 [[counterculture]] movie ''[[Easy Rider]]''. However, the phrase "heavy metal" had previously been used in 1962 by [[William Burroughs]] in his novel ''The Soft Machine'',<ref>ISBN-10: 0802133290 ISBN-13: 978-0802133298</ref> which featured a character named "Uranian Willy, the Heavy Metal Kid". In 1964, Burroughs used it to describe mass technological destruction to the point of biological toxicity in his novel ''Nova Express''.<ref>ISBN-10: 0802133304 ISBN-13: 978-0802133304 </ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[[Black Metal]]
[[Christian Metal]]

[[Category:Rock & Roll]]

Heavy metal music

2013-11-28T05:15:32Z

Dsherman: Considering it is proto-metal and the term heavy metal derives from one of their songs, i had to add it

'''Heavy metal''' is a musical genre that was developed mainly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, heavy metal is primarily noted for an emphasis on distortion, palm muting, aggressive lyrical content, bass-heavy sounds, as well as the influence of blues scales and classical structures. Heavy Metal has also spawned numerous sub genres which omit or improve upon standard technique, or invent new one altogether, giving heavy metal as a genre an impressive variety of styles and sounds. Heavy metal's origins are both rooted in the cultural upheavals that occurred during the 1960s, such as the conflict in Vietnam and the reevaluation and mass rejection of previous social schema, and the enormous influence of bands such as [[The Jimi Hendrix Experience]], [[Led Zeppelin]], [[Iron Butterfly]], and [[Black Sabbath]] that are regarded as proto-metal as well as hard rock. Other musical influences include psychedelic rock, blues rock, and the still developing progressive rock genre. Though heavy metal initially borrowed heavily from the blues in terms of playing style, this was later largely discarded by future metal acts such as [[Judas Priest]].

The first style of rock which grew from this was distorted [[blues]] sound created by [[San Francisco]] based [[psychedelia]] band, '''Blue Cheer''', whose influence on electric blues bands could be seen from [[Cream (rock band)|Cream]] to [[Jimi Hendrix]] to '''ZZ Top'''. The second style was [[progressive rock]], which in 1968 was led by [[England|English]] band '''King Crimson''', combining jazz, classical, experimental, psychedelic and folk music. The precursor to this sound was [[The Beatles]], arguably the first band to leave the standard rock format, creating longer song structures, many of which were narrative or [[opera|neo-operatic]]. This was the main inspiration for later bands such as '''Camel''', [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] and [[Yes (band)|Yes]].

By 1969, the influence of these seminal artists had saturated those parts of the public consciousness which were focused on rock music as a developing art form, and contributed to the explosion of hard rock by, for example, [[Led Zeppelin]] and [[Deep Purple]] and the so-called "proto-metal" of '''Black Sabbath'''. This year is now seen as the watershed moment in the development of what soon became heavy metal.

Black Sabbath originally began as an electric blues outfit named "Earth", but after discovering there was already a band using that name, changed to Black Sabbath after the 1964 [[Boris Karloff]] movie of the same name. Developing a new sound that was born both out of a change in attitude and the loss of lead Guitarist Tony Iommi's finger tips, Black Sabbath are largely credited with developing the more heavily distorted and crunchy elements that later became staples of the heavy metal style.

==1970s==
In 1973 the leading exponents of heavy metal were undoubtedly Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath, each having a technical prowess and a compositional inventiveness unseen before in mainstream popular music. This era also marked the beginnings of [[Satanism|Satanic]] imagery and of the spectacular, energetic live shows which became a hallmark of later heavy metal spin offs. Led Zeppelin's [[guitar|guitarist]] Jimmy Page had a strong personal fascination with the [[occult]], while many of Black Sabbath's lyrics dealt with it as well. Unlike many future bands, however, Black Sabbath never claimed to be Satanic. Singer Ozzy Osbourne claims that they were actually looking for a way to tap into the success and popularity of the horror genre, where people willingly paid to see a movie or read a novel intended solely to frighten them; to do so, they began to purposely write dark, ominous songs in an attempt to be music's answer to horror films.

Live shows were becoming bigger and more theatrical, notably Led Zeppelin's "rock till you drop" performances lasting two hours, and Alice Cooper's colossal shows following in the American tradition of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, promising "The Greatest Show On Earth". Cooper's shows featured [[boa]] constrictors, horrific freak-show mannequins, and dramatic fake-beheading scenes. Other key artists that emerged at this time included High Tide, Black Cat Bones, Black Widow, Uriah Heep, UFO and Blue Oyster Cult, and glam rockers Kiss. Each of the four members of Kiss took the on-stage persona of a cartoon-like character using elaborate face make-up and a science fiction style clothing. Another American band, Aerosmith, took the basic R 'n' B and rock 'n' roll structures of bands such as the Faces and Rolling Stones and transformed them into a new harder form. The late 70s saw a decline in the popularity of heavy metal, as the Punk movement, beginning in 1976, dominated the musical counterculture.

==1980s==
During the 1970s four British bands were formed that would arguably become the most dramatically influential of the genre during the 1980s: [[Def Leppard]], [[Iron Maiden]], [[Judas Priest]] and [[Motorhead]]. The 1980s also gave rise to the American thrash metal movement with notable bands being [[Anthrax]], [[Metallica]] and its offshoot, [[Megadeth]] and [[Slayer]]. During the 1980s [[Glam Metal]] also became very popular with bands including [[Motley Crue]], [[Ratt]], [[Bon Jovi]], [[Twisted Sister]] and [[Stryper]].

==1990s==
The advent of Grunge in the early 90s is seen as the end of Glam Metal dominance. Nirvana's 'Nevermind' caused widespread public interest in alternative forms of music. [[Groove Metal]] became popular with Pantera's 'Cowboys from Hell' and Sepultura's 'Chaos AD'. The normally marginalized sub-genres of metal, that began forming in the early to mid 80s, soon enjoyed much wider exposure. [[Black Metal]], especially in the Scandinavian countries, began to see a huge rise in popularity<ref>fact</ref>. [[Marduk]], [[Mayhem]], and [[Burzum]] were see at the forefront of the early black metal scene, and continued to see popularity due to the controversies that surrounded the bands, such as Marduk's fascination with the Third Reich and anti-christian lyrical content; the murder of Mayhem's lead guitarist Euronymous by Burzum's Varg Vikernes, as well as the lyrical content and album themes of everything post 'Deathcrush'.

==Criticism==

Due to its association with the counter culture movement and the more extreme forms that it has taken over the years, heavy metal has faced criticism from parents groups, school administrators, politicians, music critics, and religious organizations.

A musicologist wrote:

:The development of heavy metal music in the '60s and its continuing popularity through the '70s, '80s, and '90s coincides, for one thing, with the period of the greatest popularity horror films and books have ever known. Both mark a transitional moment in our history: the end of Pax Americana; new economic crises; de-industrialization, the decline of unions and the rise of low-pay service jobs; revelations of corrupt leadership; powerful social movements challenging dominant policies on race, gender, ecology, and consumer rights; new challenges to the stability of social institutions such as the family; and redefinitions of political themes such as freedom. Much of the culture of the past twenty years has functioned to restore the sense of security undermined by these disruptions. Heavy metal, like horror films, has provided ways of producing meaning in an irrational society. <ref>[http://www.superseventies.com/stairway.html Dr. Robert Walser, Professor of Musicology, Dartmouth College] - author of ''Running With the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music''</ref>

Heavy metal music has been known to glamorize anti-Christian practices such as Satanism, homosexuality, promiscuity, Nazizm<ref>[[Black Metal#National Socialist Black Metal|National Socialist Black Metal]]</ref>, drug abuse, occultism, and bestiality. Despite this, there are bands with all of the musical characteristics of heavy metal--fast drums, distorted guitars, screamed or growled vocals, that put forth a Christian message. This genre is known as [[Christian metal]], and is also sometimes referred to as White metal or unblack metal.

Popular artists who do not perform Christian music but are Christians personally include Zakk Wylde (guitarist for Ozzy Osbourne, and leader of Black Label Society), Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent, Rob Halford (Judas Priest), and Dave Mustaine (Megadeth).

==Fans==
Despite the genre's criticism, studies of fans of heavy metal are surprisingly gentle and easy-going. One such study compared heavy metal fans to fans of classical music, observing that they were quite similar in that they were creative and at ease but not outgoing<ref>[http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/09/study-country-f/ Study: Country Fans Work Hard, Metal Fans Are Gentle]</ref>. At concerts fans are generally respectful of and look after one another.

==Etymology==
The term was first used in a musical context by [[Canada|Canadian]] rock band Steppenwolf in their 1968 hit record<ref>Billboard Hot 100 singles chart: highest position #2</ref> "Born To Be Wild," which featured the line: "I like smoke and lightning, heavy metal thunder..." The song received worldwide exposure the following year when it was used in the soundtrack of the 1969 [[counterculture]] movie ''[[Easy Rider]]''. However, the phrase "heavy metal" had previously been used in 1962 by [[William Burroughs]] in his novel ''The Soft Machine'',<ref>ISBN-10: 0802133290 ISBN-13: 978-0802133298</ref> which featured a character named "Uranian Willy, the Heavy Metal Kid". In 1964, Burroughs used it to describe mass technological destruction to the point of biological toxicity in his novel ''Nova Express''.<ref>ISBN-10: 0802133304 ISBN-13: 978-0802133304 </ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[[Black Metal]]
[[Christian Metal]]

[[Category:Rock & Roll]]

Talk:Piltdown Man

2013-11-28T05:12:25Z

Dsherman:

(discussion moved from another talk page)

Although to be fair, does anyone NOT oppose teaching the Piltdown Man as truth? He's more of a Piltdown Straw Man these days. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:[[Clarence Darrow]] did not oppose it. The [[Piltdown Man]] was taught in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes Trial]]. How often do you hear that admitted by an evolutionist today? Most evolutionists did not admit that the [[Piltdown Man]] was a hoax '''''for nearly forty years'''''. Real science is not that slow to identify falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Darrow wasn't a scientist and doesn't seem to have been very educated in general. Most evolutionists started to ignore the Piltdown bones when their finder restricted access to them for the obvious reasons and other finds fitted into their theory better. I just think it was a big deal 90 years ago but is pretty irrelevant now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::It illustrates the lack of scientific method by evolutionists. Why did it take evolutionists nearly 40 years to discredit the [[Piltdown Man]], after teaching in textbooks for decades? The answer is obvious: because evolution is not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you bother to do any research before you came to that conclusion?--[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 00:12, 28 November 2013 (EST)

== The article presently needs to back up its claims with citations/links ==

The article presently needs to back up its claims with citations/links in numerous places which I noted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The "citation needed" in the paragraph "Evidences of a greater complicity..." is unnecessary since an actual example is given in the next paragraph: "For instance, in 1922..." [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 14:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A citation is definately needed for this line "The Piltdown Man was publicized as the "Missing Link" between man and ape-like species, which eluded (and still eludes) promoters of evolution." because there are fossils that link homo sapiens and the great apes, just like there are transitional fossils between homo habilis and neaderthals. As well, "Like similar artifacts purporting to prove evolution today, there was no independent or public scrutiny of the actual materials" this is quite the bold statement to make since many scientists examine the same fossils for their research ie "lucy", this absolutely needs a citation (credible one) if it is to have any merit. -shoe
:It's pretty clear that Lucy was just an ape. I don't have any issue with transitionals between us and Neanderthals though. After all they were stronger than us and IIRC had a braincase 10-15% larger. Doesn't that sound like degeneration? Maybe Noah was a Neanderthal and could build such a large wooden boat because he simply had a better brain than us. I'm sure we all accept that a lot of speciation happened since the flood, so why not evolution (more like devolution really) from Neanderthals to us? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:18, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Category ==

Since the article is categorized under "Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation", there's no need to also have it categorized under "Hoaxes". The first is a subset of the other. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:46, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 10

2013-11-22T17:48:06Z

Dsherman:

== Lawsuits ==

Update the brief note on Dawkins' lawsuit against Josh Timonen. It appears that, worse than being sloppy financial oversight on his part - the lawsuit itself was entirely baseless, and quite possibly defamatory and fraudulent. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Josh Timonen is now suing Dawkins and others. However, charges of sloppiness remain valid with respect to Dawkins oversight and involvement in said lawsuit: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/dawkins-sues-josh-timonen-t14455-2620.html#p1572780

In October 2010, Richard Dawkins and RDFRS filed a complaint against Josh Timonen, Maureen Norton, and Timonen's production company, Upper Branch Productions - alleging that the defendants had embezzled funds from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and owed Dawkins personally money.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm |title=Courthouse News Service |publisher=Courthousenews.com |date=2010-10-22 |accessdate=2012-06-11}}</ref> In August 2011, the lawsuit against Timonen ''et al'' was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were awarded to the defendants.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> (See page 15 of document cited.)

In December 2012, Timonen's company, Upper Branch Productions filed a complaint against The Richard Dawkins Foundation, Richard Dawkins, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, Michael Cornwell, and Innerworkings Incorporated, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and numerous counts of copyright infringement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> The following statements made in paragraphs 22-24 of [https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit Upper Branch's First Amended Complaint against RDFRS ''et al''] are particularly notable, with respect to the nature of the allegations made against Timonen by RDFRS and Dawkins in October 2010, regarding Timonen's operation of the RichardDawkins.net online store and RDFRS and Dawkins' knowledge of same:

"''22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but '''Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’[s] activities'''.”

''23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.''

''24. '''Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”'''''"

Emphasis added.

Also note the facts that Josh Timonen was never an employee of Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation. He was an independent contractor.

::Thanks, I deleted it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 8 March 2013 (EST)

==Dawkins and Superstition Studies==
I noticed on the issue that Dawkins has not rebutted "studies" that showed Christians are more resistant to superstition than atheists (which can also be interpreted as that it is because it conflicts with their own beliefs rather than superior logic but that's besides the point) only one study is cited (done by a private Baptist university published in an op-ed in a religious section and not a real article) and encyclopedically speaking is misleading to use the plural "studies" when only one study is used to support it. I move we either cite additional studies or we change the language used. I would do it myself but the article appears locked.--[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 12:42, 22 November 2013 (EST)

== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

This is important:'' I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers.'' '''I still know what they contained.''' Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.

I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.

Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.

These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no journals would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.

Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?
[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. [[User:GarryG|GarryG]] 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png|right|400px]]
:::GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that [[Christian apologetics|there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity]] and that [[global atheism]] is shrinking while [[global Christianity]] is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/richarddawkins.net/ Compete graph]) and according to Google Trends as can be seen [http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Richard+dawkins HERE] (relative to latter part of 2006). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)
GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]? :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)
In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [http://liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::::As far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+lack+of+lady+presence+is+so+visible+that+Conservapedia%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a HERE] (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:04, 24 February 2012 (EST)

== Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms ==

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html] Elaborate on this point and incorporate it in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article and in the [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It is Conservapedia and the media in general that consistently refers to RD as atheist, not himself. Trustworthy? The article applies particular beliefs and positions to people who have openly stated that they do not hold. This is actually a good example.

However, this is a little out of context, too. He says that he is _technically_ an agnostic as he cannot disprove Gods existence, merely interpret the available evidence. He does give an approximate percentage of 99.999....% atheist. As a scientist he cannot fairly state god does not exist without an ability to prove it. This is more than likely to be impossible - therefore he is forced to be technically agnostic. The vast majority of atheists will take a similar position - given the very notion of God is outside measurement and observation. There's a fine line between openly having bias (which is fine as it is declared), and quoting entirely out of context to suit a specific agenda. That is the impression I get from the above post. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:32, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Investigate Richard Dawkins view of infanticide in light of this video ==

Investigate Richard Dawkins' view of infanticide in light of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpOhSEA9Yb8 .

Create this article: [[Richard Dawkins and infanticide]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== abrasive, colossal bore ==

I don't doubt that you can find for any public figure some anonymous internet hack who claims that especially this figure is an idiot, bore, charlatan, etc - but I doubt that such voices - as the unnamed ''"supporters of the Question evolution! campaign"'' - should be quoted in one of the first sections of any article on a public figure.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:17, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

@[[User:Conservative]]: please have an eye on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and look out for vandals! Thanks [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:54, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, you haven't addressed the Alexa data about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:10, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Suggested correction ==

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
::I will make the correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Article Length ==

There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.

On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.

Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.

I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be.

Before anyone admonishes me for asking these questions, I'd like to point out that I have not disclosed a single personal opinion in the above post, as I don't think they're relevant to my point. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
:LocoDaw, considering I have evidence of you removing one of my additions to Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=prev&oldid=993002 ), I find your complaint about wanting more Christian content at Conservapedia rather odd. By the way, I reverted your censorship. Also, if you are concerned with the lack of more Christian content at Conservapedia why haven't your edits reflected this. I don't see you creating a lot of Christian content. Needless to say, you leave yourself wide open to the charge of hypocrisy. I thought there was a shortage of well referenced online material dealing with atheism and atheist figures in a fairly comprehensive manner on the internet which was not very low quality content (like most content written by atheists exhibits). So I created some content. Judging by the amount of views to my atheism related content, my theory about this shortage was confirmed. Since this time, some of the shortage has been alleviated as this article was created [http://creation.com/atheism atheism] and this resource was created: [http://www.truefreethinker.com/tag/atheism Atheism]
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Shmuley Boteach beat Richard Dawkins in a debate according to the student audience. Despite the fact that the debate occurred, Dawkins embarrassed himself by cowardly denying such a debate occurred. See: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]
 
 
(see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RebShmuley.jpg license agreement]) ]]
:As far as the article length, you really haven't made a convincing case that any of the material is irrelevant. For example, [[Daniel Came]], an Oxford atheist, recently commented on the issue of Dawkins and cowardice. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]] So have [[William Lane Craig]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Rabbi Boteach who beat Dawkins in his first debate mentions that Dawkins has not agreed to a second debate. By the way, Dawkins denial that the video taped Boteach debate occurred was a total disgrace and a cowards way of not dealing with a debate he lost. According to the college student audience he lost the Boteach debate. For details see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]

:Furthermore, the material on Women's views of Dawkins was cited by a prominent online magazine through a women atheist author.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Dawkins charge that teaching religion to children is child abuse ==

"Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right
and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. But
while he can accept both child abandonment and childhood sexual abuse with dispassionate fortitude, it
is the horrible crime of raising children in the faith of their fathers that upsets him due to his belief that the fear of Hell is more psychologically damaging than childhood sexual abuse in the long term... Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson of the Duke University Medical Center is not quite so blasé about
the psychological damage of sexual abuse, as his 1996 study found that the chances of sexually abused
women attempting suicide were three times higher if they had been sexually abused before the age of
sixteen.28 In the same study, Davidson determined that women who had been sexually assaulted were
six times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not. As for long-term effects, the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported that 67 percent of women over fifty diagnosed with major depression who had been sexually abused as children had made multiple suicide attempts, compared with 27 percent of depressed women over fifty who had not been abused.29 The study also found that middle-aged women who were sexually abused were more likely to suffer at least one other major mental disorder and possess a lifetime history of substance abuse...A report in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the religious faithful, most of whom were presumably raised religious, were much psychologically healthier than the irreligious. Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. . . In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.30 Vox Day, The Irrational Atheism, Darwin's Judas chapter [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

The table of contents should be after the first paragraph, not half way down the page ! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
::Move up higher. Plus, reinserted some previous material. 06:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== Citations ==

I noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&curid=103255&diff=1019763&oldid=1019761 this recent edit].

Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?

It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:::I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::::I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?
::::If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Perhaps you can use use information from here: http://christianevidence.org/science/page/higgs_disagrees_with_dawkins_on_science_and_religion to add to the article--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:26, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 10

2013-11-22T17:43:58Z

Dsherman: /* Lawsuits */

== Lawsuits ==

Update the brief note on Dawkins' lawsuit against Josh Timonen. It appears that, worse than being sloppy financial oversight on his part - the lawsuit itself was entirely baseless, and quite possibly defamatory and fraudulent. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Josh Timonen is now suing Dawkins and others. However, charges of sloppiness remain valid with respect to Dawkins oversight and involvement in said lawsuit: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/dawkins-sues-josh-timonen-t14455-2620.html#p1572780

In October 2010, Richard Dawkins and RDFRS filed a complaint against Josh Timonen, Maureen Norton, and Timonen's production company, Upper Branch Productions - alleging that the defendants had embezzled funds from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and owed Dawkins personally money.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm |title=Courthouse News Service |publisher=Courthousenews.com |date=2010-10-22 |accessdate=2012-06-11}}</ref> In August 2011, the lawsuit against Timonen ''et al'' was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were awarded to the defendants.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> (See page 15 of document cited.)

In December 2012, Timonen's company, Upper Branch Productions filed a complaint against The Richard Dawkins Foundation, Richard Dawkins, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, Michael Cornwell, and Innerworkings Incorporated, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and numerous counts of copyright infringement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> The following statements made in paragraphs 22-24 of [https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit Upper Branch's First Amended Complaint against RDFRS ''et al''] are particularly notable, with respect to the nature of the allegations made against Timonen by RDFRS and Dawkins in October 2010, regarding Timonen's operation of the RichardDawkins.net online store and RDFRS and Dawkins' knowledge of same:

"''22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but '''Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’[s] activities'''.”

''23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.''

''24. '''Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”'''''"

Emphasis added.

Also note the facts that Josh Timonen was never an employee of Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation. He was an independent contractor.

::Thanks, I deleted it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 8 March 2013 (EST)

I noticed on the issue that Dawkins has not rebutted "studies" that showed Christians are more resistant to superstition than atheists (which can also be interpreted as that it is because it conflicts with their own beliefs rather than superior logic but that's besides the point) only one study is cited (done by a private Baptist university published in an op-ed in a religious section and not a real article) and encyclopedically speaking is misleading to use the plural "studies" when only one study is used to support it. I move we either cite additional studies or we change the language used. I would do it myself but the article appears locked.--[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 12:42, 22 November 2013 (EST)

== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

This is important:'' I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers.'' '''I still know what they contained.''' Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.

I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.

Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.

These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no journals would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.

Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?
[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. [[User:GarryG|GarryG]] 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png|right|400px]]
:::GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that [[Christian apologetics|there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity]] and that [[global atheism]] is shrinking while [[global Christianity]] is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/richarddawkins.net/ Compete graph]) and according to Google Trends as can be seen [http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Richard+dawkins HERE] (relative to latter part of 2006). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)
GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]? :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)
In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [http://liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::::As far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+lack+of+lady+presence+is+so+visible+that+Conservapedia%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a HERE] (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:04, 24 February 2012 (EST)

== Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms ==

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html] Elaborate on this point and incorporate it in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article and in the [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It is Conservapedia and the media in general that consistently refers to RD as atheist, not himself. Trustworthy? The article applies particular beliefs and positions to people who have openly stated that they do not hold. This is actually a good example.

However, this is a little out of context, too. He says that he is _technically_ an agnostic as he cannot disprove Gods existence, merely interpret the available evidence. He does give an approximate percentage of 99.999....% atheist. As a scientist he cannot fairly state god does not exist without an ability to prove it. This is more than likely to be impossible - therefore he is forced to be technically agnostic. The vast majority of atheists will take a similar position - given the very notion of God is outside measurement and observation. There's a fine line between openly having bias (which is fine as it is declared), and quoting entirely out of context to suit a specific agenda. That is the impression I get from the above post. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:32, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Investigate Richard Dawkins view of infanticide in light of this video ==

Investigate Richard Dawkins' view of infanticide in light of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpOhSEA9Yb8 .

Create this article: [[Richard Dawkins and infanticide]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== abrasive, colossal bore ==

I don't doubt that you can find for any public figure some anonymous internet hack who claims that especially this figure is an idiot, bore, charlatan, etc - but I doubt that such voices - as the unnamed ''"supporters of the Question evolution! campaign"'' - should be quoted in one of the first sections of any article on a public figure.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:17, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

@[[User:Conservative]]: please have an eye on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and look out for vandals! Thanks [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:54, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, you haven't addressed the Alexa data about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:10, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Suggested correction ==

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
::I will make the correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Article Length ==

There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.

On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.

Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.

I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be.

Before anyone admonishes me for asking these questions, I'd like to point out that I have not disclosed a single personal opinion in the above post, as I don't think they're relevant to my point. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
:LocoDaw, considering I have evidence of you removing one of my additions to Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=prev&oldid=993002 ), I find your complaint about wanting more Christian content at Conservapedia rather odd. By the way, I reverted your censorship. Also, if you are concerned with the lack of more Christian content at Conservapedia why haven't your edits reflected this. I don't see you creating a lot of Christian content. Needless to say, you leave yourself wide open to the charge of hypocrisy. I thought there was a shortage of well referenced online material dealing with atheism and atheist figures in a fairly comprehensive manner on the internet which was not very low quality content (like most content written by atheists exhibits). So I created some content. Judging by the amount of views to my atheism related content, my theory about this shortage was confirmed. Since this time, some of the shortage has been alleviated as this article was created [http://creation.com/atheism atheism] and this resource was created: [http://www.truefreethinker.com/tag/atheism Atheism]
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Shmuley Boteach beat Richard Dawkins in a debate according to the student audience. Despite the fact that the debate occurred, Dawkins embarrassed himself by cowardly denying such a debate occurred. See: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]
 
 
(see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RebShmuley.jpg license agreement]) ]]
:As far as the article length, you really haven't made a convincing case that any of the material is irrelevant. For example, [[Daniel Came]], an Oxford atheist, recently commented on the issue of Dawkins and cowardice. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]] So have [[William Lane Craig]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Rabbi Boteach who beat Dawkins in his first debate mentions that Dawkins has not agreed to a second debate. By the way, Dawkins denial that the video taped Boteach debate occurred was a total disgrace and a cowards way of not dealing with a debate he lost. According to the college student audience he lost the Boteach debate. For details see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]

:Furthermore, the material on Women's views of Dawkins was cited by a prominent online magazine through a women atheist author.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Dawkins charge that teaching religion to children is child abuse ==

"Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right
and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. But
while he can accept both child abandonment and childhood sexual abuse with dispassionate fortitude, it
is the horrible crime of raising children in the faith of their fathers that upsets him due to his belief that the fear of Hell is more psychologically damaging than childhood sexual abuse in the long term... Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson of the Duke University Medical Center is not quite so blasé about
the psychological damage of sexual abuse, as his 1996 study found that the chances of sexually abused
women attempting suicide were three times higher if they had been sexually abused before the age of
sixteen.28 In the same study, Davidson determined that women who had been sexually assaulted were
six times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not. As for long-term effects, the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported that 67 percent of women over fifty diagnosed with major depression who had been sexually abused as children had made multiple suicide attempts, compared with 27 percent of depressed women over fifty who had not been abused.29 The study also found that middle-aged women who were sexually abused were more likely to suffer at least one other major mental disorder and possess a lifetime history of substance abuse...A report in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the religious faithful, most of whom were presumably raised religious, were much psychologically healthier than the irreligious. Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. . . In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.30 Vox Day, The Irrational Atheism, Darwin's Judas chapter [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

The table of contents should be after the first paragraph, not half way down the page ! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
::Move up higher. Plus, reinserted some previous material. 06:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== Citations ==

I noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&curid=103255&diff=1019763&oldid=1019761 this recent edit].

Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?

It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:::I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::::I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?
::::If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Perhaps you can use use information from here: http://christianevidence.org/science/page/higgs_disagrees_with_dawkins_on_science_and_religion to add to the article--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:26, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 10

2013-11-22T17:42:03Z

Dsherman: /* Lawsuits */

== Lawsuits ==

Update the brief note on Dawkins' lawsuit against Josh Timonen. It appears that, worse than being sloppy financial oversight on his part - the lawsuit itself was entirely baseless, and quite possibly defamatory and fraudulent. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Josh Timonen is now suing Dawkins and others. However, charges of sloppiness remain valid with respect to Dawkins oversight and involvement in said lawsuit: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/dawkins-sues-josh-timonen-t14455-2620.html#p1572780

In October 2010, Richard Dawkins and RDFRS filed a complaint against Josh Timonen, Maureen Norton, and Timonen's production company, Upper Branch Productions - alleging that the defendants had embezzled funds from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and owed Dawkins personally money.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm |title=Courthouse News Service |publisher=Courthousenews.com |date=2010-10-22 |accessdate=2012-06-11}}</ref> In August 2011, the lawsuit against Timonen ''et al'' was dismissed with prejudice, and costs were awarded to the defendants.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> (See page 15 of document cited.)

In December 2012, Timonen's company, Upper Branch Productions filed a complaint against The Richard Dawkins Foundation, Richard Dawkins, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, Michael Cornwell, and Innerworkings Incorporated, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and numerous counts of copyright infringement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit |title=Upper Branch Productions Vs RDFRS et al, First Amended Complaint |date=2012-12-10 |accessdate=2013-03-08}}</ref> The following statements made in paragraphs 22-24 of [https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pF9EuUEP1Db9oBYSREBIyYmNEVOGZpRblEJeHnV6Z0edgt1eziuiKEBj5cxJ/edit Upper Branch's First Amended Complaint against RDFRS ''et al''] are particularly notable, with respect to the nature of the allegations made against Timonen by RDFRS and Dawkins in October 2010, regarding Timonen's operation of the RichardDawkins.net online store and RDFRS and Dawkins' knowledge of same:

"''22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but '''Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’[s] activities'''.”

''23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.''

''24. '''Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”'''''"

Emphasis added.

Also note the facts that Josh Timonen was never an employee of Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation. He was an independent contractor.

::Thanks, I deleted it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 8 March 2013 (EST)

I noticed on the issue that Dawkins has not rebutted "studies" that showed Christians are more resistant to superstition than atheists (which can also be interpreted as that it is because it conflicts with their own beliefs rather than superior logic but that's besides the point) only one study is cited (done by a private Baptist university published in an op-ed in a religious section and not a real article) and encyclopedically speaking is misleading to use the plural "studies" when only one study is used to support it. I move we either cite additional studies or we change the language used. I would do it myself but the article appears locked.--[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 12:42, 22 November 2013 (EST)

== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

This is important:'' I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers.'' '''I still know what they contained.''' Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.

I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.

Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.

These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no journals would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.

Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?
[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. [[User:GarryG|GarryG]] 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png|right|400px]]
:::GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that [[Christian apologetics|there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity]] and that [[global atheism]] is shrinking while [[global Christianity]] is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/richarddawkins.net/ Compete graph]) and according to Google Trends as can be seen [http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Richard+dawkins HERE] (relative to latter part of 2006). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)
GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]? :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)
In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [http://liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::::As far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+lack+of+lady+presence+is+so+visible+that+Conservapedia%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a HERE] (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:04, 24 February 2012 (EST)

== Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms ==

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html] Elaborate on this point and incorporate it in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article and in the [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It is Conservapedia and the media in general that consistently refers to RD as atheist, not himself. Trustworthy? The article applies particular beliefs and positions to people who have openly stated that they do not hold. This is actually a good example.

However, this is a little out of context, too. He says that he is _technically_ an agnostic as he cannot disprove Gods existence, merely interpret the available evidence. He does give an approximate percentage of 99.999....% atheist. As a scientist he cannot fairly state god does not exist without an ability to prove it. This is more than likely to be impossible - therefore he is forced to be technically agnostic. The vast majority of atheists will take a similar position - given the very notion of God is outside measurement and observation. There's a fine line between openly having bias (which is fine as it is declared), and quoting entirely out of context to suit a specific agenda. That is the impression I get from the above post. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:32, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Investigate Richard Dawkins view of infanticide in light of this video ==

Investigate Richard Dawkins' view of infanticide in light of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpOhSEA9Yb8 .

Create this article: [[Richard Dawkins and infanticide]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== abrasive, colossal bore ==

I don't doubt that you can find for any public figure some anonymous internet hack who claims that especially this figure is an idiot, bore, charlatan, etc - but I doubt that such voices - as the unnamed ''"supporters of the Question evolution! campaign"'' - should be quoted in one of the first sections of any article on a public figure.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:17, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

@[[User:Conservative]]: please have an eye on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and look out for vandals! Thanks [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:54, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, you haven't addressed the Alexa data about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:10, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Suggested correction ==

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
::I will make the correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Article Length ==

There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.

On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.

Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.

I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be.

Before anyone admonishes me for asking these questions, I'd like to point out that I have not disclosed a single personal opinion in the above post, as I don't think they're relevant to my point. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
:LocoDaw, considering I have evidence of you removing one of my additions to Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=prev&oldid=993002 ), I find your complaint about wanting more Christian content at Conservapedia rather odd. By the way, I reverted your censorship. Also, if you are concerned with the lack of more Christian content at Conservapedia why haven't your edits reflected this. I don't see you creating a lot of Christian content. Needless to say, you leave yourself wide open to the charge of hypocrisy. I thought there was a shortage of well referenced online material dealing with atheism and atheist figures in a fairly comprehensive manner on the internet which was not very low quality content (like most content written by atheists exhibits). So I created some content. Judging by the amount of views to my atheism related content, my theory about this shortage was confirmed. Since this time, some of the shortage has been alleviated as this article was created [http://creation.com/atheism atheism] and this resource was created: [http://www.truefreethinker.com/tag/atheism Atheism]
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Shmuley Boteach beat Richard Dawkins in a debate according to the student audience. Despite the fact that the debate occurred, Dawkins embarrassed himself by cowardly denying such a debate occurred. See: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]
 
 
(see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RebShmuley.jpg license agreement]) ]]
:As far as the article length, you really haven't made a convincing case that any of the material is irrelevant. For example, [[Daniel Came]], an Oxford atheist, recently commented on the issue of Dawkins and cowardice. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]] So have [[William Lane Craig]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Rabbi Boteach who beat Dawkins in his first debate mentions that Dawkins has not agreed to a second debate. By the way, Dawkins denial that the video taped Boteach debate occurred was a total disgrace and a cowards way of not dealing with a debate he lost. According to the college student audience he lost the Boteach debate. For details see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]

:Furthermore, the material on Women's views of Dawkins was cited by a prominent online magazine through a women atheist author.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Dawkins charge that teaching religion to children is child abuse ==

"Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right
and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. But
while he can accept both child abandonment and childhood sexual abuse with dispassionate fortitude, it
is the horrible crime of raising children in the faith of their fathers that upsets him due to his belief that the fear of Hell is more psychologically damaging than childhood sexual abuse in the long term... Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson of the Duke University Medical Center is not quite so blasé about
the psychological damage of sexual abuse, as his 1996 study found that the chances of sexually abused
women attempting suicide were three times higher if they had been sexually abused before the age of
sixteen.28 In the same study, Davidson determined that women who had been sexually assaulted were
six times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not. As for long-term effects, the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported that 67 percent of women over fifty diagnosed with major depression who had been sexually abused as children had made multiple suicide attempts, compared with 27 percent of depressed women over fifty who had not been abused.29 The study also found that middle-aged women who were sexually abused were more likely to suffer at least one other major mental disorder and possess a lifetime history of substance abuse...A report in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the religious faithful, most of whom were presumably raised religious, were much psychologically healthier than the irreligious. Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. . . In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.30 Vox Day, The Irrational Atheism, Darwin's Judas chapter [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

The table of contents should be after the first paragraph, not half way down the page ! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
::Move up higher. Plus, reinserted some previous material. 06:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== Citations ==

I noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&curid=103255&diff=1019763&oldid=1019761 this recent edit].

Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?

It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:::I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::::I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?
::::If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Perhaps you can use use information from here: http://christianevidence.org/science/page/higgs_disagrees_with_dawkins_on_science_and_religion to add to the article--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:26, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Todd Akin

2013-11-20T00:48:22Z

Dsherman:

Nothing in Akin's comment suggests he wanted to distinguish between "legitimate" rape and false accusations of rape.--[[User:Jukebox|Jukebox]]

:The context of the remark, as well as common sense, demonstrate that meaning. No other meaning is plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:15, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

:I suspect that a large part of what has worked so many people up is his idea that the female body has ways of shutting down a pregnancy due to rape. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart 12]] 15:22, 22 August 2012

::Akin's comment was “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare...If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.” I don't think he would need a doctor to explain that someone who wasn't raped won't get pregnant and that still doesn't address the problem that he seems to think that women can somehow stop pregnancy during rape, which is what the controversy is about. Why not just focus on his concern about the child and the mother as the victims? Half his comment is brilliant and the rest just a mistake. --[[User:Jukebox|Jukebox]]

Why were my comments deleted?--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 10:29, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
:I think there has been a major issue with the database. Everything between last night and a few minutes ago seems to have disappeared. It's not just your comments. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:03, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
On August 23, I noted here that there are two separate aspects to this article - his campaign and the media reaction to his remarks. I believe that the article should cover both aspects. So, I expanded the article. My changes were lost in the data base problems, so I have readded them. I kept all subsequent changes to the media discussion section. Please feel free to edit further, but I find it a bit frustrating to have so much hard work lost due to technical glitches. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:23, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

: I revised your additions, prioritizing the principled [[conservative]] positions and downgrading the less thoughtful comments by left-leaning politicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Did a doctor tell him that the female body has ways of "shutting the whole thing down" or just tell him "it's really rare" and just make assumptions (based on that comment) about the biological shut down? --[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 13:07, 19 November 2013 (EST)

:I think a doctor did tell Congressman Akin that the body typically goes into shock when victimized by rape, and that this reduces the likelihood of pregnancy--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 19 November 2013 (EST).

Hopfully it was a doctor that had a medical degree.--[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 19:48, 19 November 2013 (EST)

== Akin. ==

I agree with Palin on this one. There is no such thing as ''legitimate rape''; that implies that both of the people involved went into it willingly. And Akin is losing in his own state by ten points. At this point, I think that Akin is either trying to lose or being incompetent. We cannot have incompetent men in the governing body of this country. Akin must go. Also, he himself has admitted that he is totally wrong. Why are you making excuses for Akin that Akin is not even making for himself?

:Akin's proper, intended meaning of the phrase was clear from the context, even to people who (like Palin) opposed him before he made the remark.

:And Akin did not admit he was totally wrong in his principles. Quite the contrary, he has withstood the [[media bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Todd Akin

2013-11-19T18:07:29Z

Dsherman:

Nothing in Akin's comment suggests he wanted to distinguish between "legitimate" rape and false accusations of rape.--[[User:Jukebox|Jukebox]]

:The context of the remark, as well as common sense, demonstrate that meaning. No other meaning is plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:15, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

:I suspect that a large part of what has worked so many people up is his idea that the female body has ways of shutting down a pregnancy due to rape. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart 12]] 15:22, 22 August 2012

::Akin's comment was “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare...If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.” I don't think he would need a doctor to explain that someone who wasn't raped won't get pregnant and that still doesn't address the problem that he seems to think that women can somehow stop pregnancy during rape, which is what the controversy is about. Why not just focus on his concern about the child and the mother as the victims? Half his comment is brilliant and the rest just a mistake. --[[User:Jukebox|Jukebox]]

Why were my comments deleted?--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 10:29, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
:I think there has been a major issue with the database. Everything between last night and a few minutes ago seems to have disappeared. It's not just your comments. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:03, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
On August 23, I noted here that there are two separate aspects to this article - his campaign and the media reaction to his remarks. I believe that the article should cover both aspects. So, I expanded the article. My changes were lost in the data base problems, so I have readded them. I kept all subsequent changes to the media discussion section. Please feel free to edit further, but I find it a bit frustrating to have so much hard work lost due to technical glitches. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:23, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

: I revised your additions, prioritizing the principled [[conservative]] positions and downgrading the less thoughtful comments by left-leaning politicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Did a doctor tell him that the female body has ways of "shutting the whole thing down" or just tell him "it's really rare" and just make assumptions (based on that comment) about the biological shut down? --[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 13:07, 19 November 2013 (EST)

== Akin. ==

I agree with Palin on this one. There is no such thing as ''legitimate rape''; that implies that both of the people involved went into it willingly. And Akin is losing in his own state by ten points. At this point, I think that Akin is either trying to lose or being incompetent. We cannot have incompetent men in the governing body of this country. Akin must go. Also, he himself has admitted that he is totally wrong. Why are you making excuses for Akin that Akin is not even making for himself?

:Akin's proper, intended meaning of the phrase was clear from the context, even to people who (like Palin) opposed him before he made the remark.

:And Akin did not admit he was totally wrong in his principles. Quite the contrary, he has withstood the [[media bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 26

2013-11-18T03:29:18Z

Dsherman:

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Whereas I, a different user, though I am Christian, see no problem with evolution, and honestly trust science more than certain political pundits and loudmouths. {{unsigned|AcomaMagic}}

And I, another user, though I am an agnostic (however, I am inclined more towards atheism than ever due to articles like this) understand that evolution is a flawless theory. It is scientific fact, a certainty, that unnerves me as much as it does anyone else - and yet it is undeniably a fact because there is a huge body of evidence supporting it. This body of evidence is readily available in brilliant books that you can borrow from your local library, and impossible, if understood, to contradict (using logic and reason). It makes me sad to see debates raging on on this subject when the matter has long since been settled. Evoltuion is proven by the fossil record, without exception; by the science of genetics, without exception; it is actually played out visibly if you care to study the development of a human embryo; it sheds light (though of course, cannot be proven, as that would be a cyclical arguement) by the many oddities that plague human anatomy, such as vestigial tails, redundant organs, and certain instincts (like that twitch you feel when you are falling asleep and your arm falls: that is a best explained as remnant of a trait our ancestors developed to prevent themselves falling out trees). The often quoted existence of a 'missing link' is also imaginary, for reasons that would become evident to people who actually studied the facts of this issue. I am certain that every creationist, and evolution denier, in fact, every non ultra-Darwinist, has not thoroughly researched the topic. Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins provide the most accurate overview of evolution in the scientific world. There is literally no reason to dis-believe in evolution, or even to believe in it. This is because it is not a question of belief. It has been proven. Therefore one does not need belief to realise it is true. {{unsigned|Narrator}}

----

Recently my son, devout of faith, laughed, "Ten minutes in the Natural History Museum teaches you how great God is, and how true evolution is."
Certainly the majority of Christianity agrees with him. I do. And it is sad to see the unjust criticisms here of science, which must, by definition, take a mechanistic viewpoint. I'd advise the authors of this article to bear in mind this paraphrasing of our Lord Jesus's words, "Render unto science the things that are science's. . ." God's works are great and it's difficult enough to understand his purposes without blinding ourselves with ancestor worship in the form of Biblical literalism. That's just another form of idolatry. There are infinite possibilities to see Him at work everyday in our personal lives.[[User:Klasovsky|Klasovsky]] 13:21, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:[[Jesus]] expressly referred to the [[Great Flood]], which university "scientists" deny today. Who do [[Christian]]s say is right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 8 January 2013 (EST)
::I'm a Christian. I also understand how allegories work. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:05, 8 January 2013 (EST)

== Issues ==
There are a few things, such as in the opening that isn't accurate. There is not several theories of evolution, evolution is the only theory but there are some theories within of how some processes work. The statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is also wrong. It is one of the main points of evidence for evolution. The information about 700 scientists signing the statement that evolution is wrong should also mention the Steve Project, which has taken names just from scientists who are named Steve and have many more names than the Discovery Institute. There is also statistics regarding medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, but for some reason does not comment on scientists in general, such as this poll [http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/] which states that 97% of scientist believe evolution. [[User:Crzyclarks|Crzyclarks]] 20:32, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:Evolutionism is pseudoscience. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:01, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:::the other issue is the logic of the statement that the most prominent advocates for evolution since world war 2 have been atheists and further suggestion it's an atheistic thing. If we use the same logic we can conclude that Creationism (especially Young Earth Creationism) we can conclude the most vocal opponents of Evolution are Theists and opposition to Evolution is mostly based on religion. The problem here is the implication considering (unless i'm mistaken, I need to research more before i can make any sort of blanket statement) there are '''far''' more Theistic Evolutionists than there are Atheistic Creationists it's misleading to suggest that Evolution is based on Atheism. --DavidS 10:39, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

==Popper Quote==

The Karl Popper quote is taken out of context. For example the next line is: "and although it is no doubt THE BEST AT PRESENT AVAILABLE, it can be slightly improved." In addition, anyone who researches more will find that he recanted his view later in life.

I find incidents such as this common throughout the page, and I humbly ask for it to be unprotected so that I can fix the mistakes throughout. [[User:TAbbott|TAbbott]] 8:12, 2 October 2012 (BST)
:You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If Popper's full quote was not anti-evolution in character, then why would you claim he recanted? Secondly, leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:58, 8 January 2013 (EST)

== racism ==

How would I go about adding some references to this Answers in Genesis article to the Social Effects section? http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/darwin-and-racism?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=darwin-and-racism-campaign

Sorry. I'm kind of new here.

==Reject Darwinism?==

I think y'all are jumping to conclusions with the polls, suggesting these doctors reject Darwinism because they don't believe that life developed through natural processes alone since there are plenty of people who believe God guided evolution.
--[[User:Dsherman|Dsherman]] 22:29, 17 November 2013 (EST)

Elevatorgate

2013-11-07T22:28:37Z

Dsherman:

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
'''Elevatorgate''' is a term commonly used to describe a scandal involving [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]]' comments made to fellow atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] which have been perceived to be inappropriate by some. In July of 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist Rebecca Watson about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Richard Dawkins' Elevatorgate comments]]).<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]</ref> Specifically, Watson was invited for coffee and a conversation late at night by a man who was a fellow atheist. Watson was upset by this and subsequently blogged about it. Following this, Richard Dawkins wrote an open letter to a fictitious Muslim woman, satirically equating Rebecca's plight with that of abused Muslim women. Watson has written about perceived widespread [[misogny]] within the atheist community and she has received threats of rape (see also: [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]).<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ The Privilege Delusion by Rebecca Watson - Skepchick]</ref>.

According to Rebecca Watson atheist women are often punished for being outspoken - particularly when they speak about [[feminism]].<ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref> In August of 2013, Watson said the harassment she received from male atheists skyrocketed after Elevatorgate. <ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref> Furthermore, she said she still receives harassment from male fans of Richard Dawkins.<ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref> The atheist feminist Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson concurs with Watson and says that sexual harassment has been institutionalized within the atheist movement and that atheist men have an investment in censoring, controlling and policing women and also have an investment in "male privilege".<ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref>

The ''New Statesman'' reporter and fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptic]] [[David Allen Green]] said he believed Dawkins was a [[sexism|mysoginist]] and a racist.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]</ref> In addition, Green wrote: "Can Richard Dawkins still credibly pose as a champion of rational thinking and an evidence-based approach? In my opinion, he certainly cannot, at least not in the way he did before."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]</ref>

== Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate ==

[[File:Rebecca-watson.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[Rebecca Watson]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rebecca_watson_geek.jpg Wikimedia commons], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
As a result of Elevatorgate, atheist Rebecca Watson wrote concerning Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|This person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experience as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don't think my reading list will suffer."<ref>[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/ Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists by Caitlin Dickson - The Atlantic Wire, Jul 06, 2011]</ref>}}

=== Atheist Rebecca Watson and post Elevatorgate claim concerning harassment ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[New Atheism]]

Post Elevatorgate controversy, at an atheist convention, [[Rebecca Watson]] claimed:
{{cquote|Hundreds of atheists have informed me that either they wanted to rape me, someone should rape me so that I will loosen up or that no one would ever rape me because I am so ugly".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mLHdTsmPc PZ Myers and the Art of Shameless Dishonesty]</ref>}}

In July of 2012, Watson declared: "It get regular rape threats. I get regular rape and murder threats".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FtpDLi_Vw FreeThoughtBlogs and PZ Myers]</ref> Furthermore, in August of 2013, [[Rebecca Watson]] said that post Elevatorgate she received a flood of rape threats and she continues to receive rape threats (see: [[Atheism and rape]]).<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/06/sikivu-ophelia-and-rebecca-who-says-atheism-lacks-women-stars/ Sikivu, Ophelia, and Rebecca — who says atheism lacks women stars?]</ref>

See also:

* [[Atheism and women]]

* [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]

* [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

* [[New Atheism]]

=== Charge of unrestrained attacks on Dawkins by Rebecca Watson and her supporters ===

In a July 2012, article entitled One year after Elevatorgate the skeptic Chris Willett wrote:
{{cquote|Rebecca Watson and her supporters began waging unrestrained warfare on Richard Dawkins...

Certainly I can understand the outrage of Watson and others – no one relishes the idea of having Richard Dawkins sarcastically shout the equivalent of “first world problem!” at your dilemma, especially when a woman has good reason to feel discomfort in the confined space of an elevator – but they lost all of my sympathy when they reacted in a manner far disproportionate to Dawkins’ remarks:

Watson herself referred derisively to Dawkins as a “stinking rich” “wealthy old heterosexual white man,” thus immediately undercutting her own complaint about being perceived and treated according to her own sex and appearance. This was not a good start. Skepchick’s Mindy, who used the terms “misogyny” and “racist” to describe Dawkins’ comments, was more severe: “I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn,” she wrote, and “you don’t get a second chance,” revealing as hypocrites the very same people who just finished criticizing Dawkins for his tone. And one wonders if any of the people then writing vicious letters had stopped to consider that Dawkins himself was inappropriately fondled as a child, which made it all the more absurd to claim that he is unfamiliar with and unconcerned about harassment and sexual assault.<ref>[http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/ One year after Elevatorgate]</ref><ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 One year after Elevatorgate]</ref>}}

=== Allegation that Rebecca Watson was behaving hypocritically ===

Amanda Read wrote in the ''[[Washington Times]]'' that she believed Watson was behaving hypocritically and declared:
{{cquote|The point is that because the issue is [[sexism]] in the atheist movement, perceptions of sexism are not based on absolute principle, but on relative emotion.

Watson speaks out against the sexual objectification of women, but she apparently sees nothing wrong with the pinup calendars that she and her female atheist friends publish. [[PZ Myers|Myers]] defended her views on his blog, but only last year he linked to an interesting interview with Nina Hartley, a feminist atheist who sees nothing wrong with women performing as sex workers.

You see, sexism and the exploitation of women are not immoral to godless women as long as such things are on their terms.<ref>[http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/ Of sexism and atheism: Richard Dawkins gets in trouble with feminists, Washington Times, July 16, 2011]</ref>}}

== Previous incident of Richard Dawkins being unkind to a woman ==

In September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html</ref>

For more information please see: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]

== Aftermath of Elevatorgate ==

[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|250px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]]. According to the website tracking firms [[Alexa]] and Quantcast women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref>http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net</ref><ref>http://www.quantcast.com/richarddawkins.net#demographics</ref>
 
 
Recently, [[Vox Day]] and ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be [[Atheism and women|quarrelsome, socially changed men.]]<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/constantweader/2404429188/ Flickr] photo, see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
Although major press outlets have covered Elevatorgate<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From L
imb—By Atheists - Gawker]
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]</ref>, most of the commentary surrounding the events of Elevatorgate has been in the atheist blogosphere.

Concerning post Elevatorgate events one atheist blogger wrote:
{{cquote|There was then lots and lots and lots of [[Argybargy|argybargy]], and now it's being said gallons of misogynist men over the net are trying to shout down Rebecca Watson; that is explicitly so presented in this very recent broadcast [http://wearecitizenradio.com/2011/07/11/20110711-rebecca-watson-on-richard-dawkins-sexist-comments-and-the-atheist-community/ on Citizen Radio] featuring an interview of Watson (the part with Watson starts only a bit after 20 minutes into the recording, so skip the first 20 minutes).<ref>[http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?bt=5857 ElevatorGate: Rebecca Watson & Richard Dawkins are not the droids you're looking for - Heathen Hub]</ref>}}

Subsequent to Elevatorgate there was 3 weeks of infighting within the atheist community.<ref>[http://synapses.co.za/elevatorgate-power-words/ Elevatorgate - the power of words]</ref>

=== Uphill battle of Rebecca Watkins and female atheists combatting atheist misogyny ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and rape]] and [[Atheism and women]]

Another atheist blogger wrote about Rebecca and her fellow female bloggers at the website Skepchick:
{{cquote|The fatal decision was to extend the fight to tackle the greatest problem remaining in modern skepticism – socially awkward male [[nerd]]s.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak - [[Sun Tzu]] “

The skepchick army, marshalling their forces, decided to attack the nerds their presumed weakest point – on the internet.

Unfortunately, and apparently a surprise for some, the internet is the perfect natural environment of the socially awkward nerd.<ref>[http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2011/07/elevatorgate-dawkins-strikes-back.html Elevatorgate: Dawkins strikes back]</ref>}}

As noted earlier, prior to the Elevatorgate incident, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

===Conflict at TAM 9===

At "The Amazing Meeting 9", organised by skeptic and homosexual atheist [[James Randi]], Dawkins and Watson walked out of each other's talks in protest at each other's behaviour during the incident. Dawkins also announced that in future he would pay for childcare at Amazing Meetings, probably as a dig at Watson.

=== Thunderf00t and Greg Laden's removal from freethoughtblogs.com ===

The atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is the most popular evolutionist at YouTube.

On July 1, 2012, atheist [[Ed Brayton]] declared:
{{cquote|As many of you are no doubt aware, there’s been a lot of strife in this community lately. Some of it has been in public, some of it was in private and some of it may well go from being private to public as a result of all of this. So let me give you the news and clear the air:

We are parting company with two of our bloggers: Thunderf00t and Greg Laden. We wish them both the best but, unfortunately, their behavior towards other members of the community has made it impossible to keep them as part of our network. This is not a matter of a disagreement or difference of opinion, but of behavior that we cannot condone or support.

None of this is a reflection on the worth of the many contributions that both of these people have made to the atheist cause. I hope and am confident that they will both continue to offer a lot of good things to this community.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/07/01/major-changes-at-freethought-blogs/ Major changes at freethoughtblogs - Ed Brayton]</ref>}}

The matter which appeared to spark the contention was how to properly deal with the significant amount of [[misogny]] within the atheist community (see: [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Atheist leaders and immoral relationships]]).<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/01/thunderf00t-check-your-email/ Thunderf00t, check your email - PZ Myers]</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuKH3trPpgY&list=UUmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A&index=1&feature=plcp Thunderf00t on how to handle misogny in the atheist community]</ref><ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/thunderf00t/2012/07/01/skepchickcon-and-the-harassment-lol-icy/ SkepchickCON and the Harassment LOL-icy]</ref><ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/thunderf00t/2012/06/29/is-it-freethoughtblogs-or-group-think-blogs/ Is it ‘Freethoughtblogs’ or ‘Group-think-blogs’?]</ref>

[[Vox Day]] wrote that Thunderf00t's removal from Freethoughtblogs exemplified [[PZ Myers]]'s unwillingness to intellectually engage his opponents and his lack of integrity.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/free-fascistthoughtblogs.html Vox Fay on Freethoughtblogs</ref>

==== Rebecca Watson response to Thunderf00t and his fans ====

''See also:'' [[Rebecca Watson and Thunderf00t factions of atheism]]

On July 1, 2012 [[Rebecca Watson]] wrote post Elevatorgate controversy:
{{cquote|[[Skepchick]] has been exposed for what it is: a totalitarian [[Nazi]] clique who created an anti-harassment policy specifically so that men could harass women in bars and [[Muslim]] could force us to wear burqas. I know it’s true because noted atheist intellectuals Paula Kirby and [[Thunderf00t]] said so!

I debated whether or not to write about this because the recent insults about Skepchick have been so self-evidently ignorant and wrong that I felt it would look like we were picking on tiny, angry babies. And no one likes to see that. I’m relenting only because the sheer amount and absurdity of the insults have reached a level that cannot be ignored, like a large mob of angry babies brandishing pacifiers and blankies as weapons.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2012/07/hot-gossip-were-all-burqa-wearing-nazis/ Hot Gossip: We’re All Burqa-wearing Nazis]</ref>}}

==== Post Elevatorgate comment about atheist conferences ====

Rebecca Watson post Elevatorgate wrote at ''Slate'' about atheist conferences:
{{cquote|[W]omen started telling me stories about sexism at skeptic events, experiences that made them uncomfortable enough to never return. At first, I wasn’t able to fully understand their feelings as I had never had a problem existing in male-dominated spaces. But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events.

I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were “my people,” and they were the worst.<ref>[http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/26/sexism-and-the-new-atheism/ Sexism and the New Atheism]</ref>}}

== Abundance of vitriol and a lack of calm and reasoned discussion post Elevatorgate ==

The blog Freethought Kampala described the aftermath of Elevergate thusly:
{{cquote|Elevatorgate is the unprecedented INTERNET WAR that erupted after Rebecca Watson (above) posted a video in which she discussed an ordeal she experienced in an elevator while attending the World Atheist Convention which took place in Dublin, Ireland, from June 3rd to June 5th, 2011.

During the months of July and August 2011, the atheist-skeptic blogosphere was ablaze with accusations, counter-accusations, verbal fights, moral declarations and insults as hundreds of bloggers and millions of their readers tried to determine whose assessment of the events narrated by Watson best represented the facts at hand.<ref>[http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/elevatorgate/#more-2383 Elevatorgate - Freethought Kampala]</ref>}}

Subsequently the blog Freethought Kampala wrote in a blog post entitled ''Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism'':
{{cquote|You would think that being skeptics, whatever disagreements arising from how the events surrounding and following from Elevatorgate were to be interpreted would be done calmly, rationally, and above all, skeptically.

But this is not what happened at all.

My concern is not so much about whether someone takes one view or another with regards to Elevatorgate. Indeed, even among the members of Freethought Kampala, there are different opinions on various aspects of the matter. My concern is about how the matter has been handled, the poor quality of arguments that have been advanced, the astounding amounts of hypocrisy on display, and above all the intolerant attitude towards viewpoints that don’t tow the radical gender [[feminism|feminist]] line – all this, among people that call themselves skeptics.<ref>[http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/elevatorgate-part-2-the-failure-of-skepticism/ Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism]</ref>}}

== Christian creationist response ==
[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote concerning Elevatorgate
{{cquote|In a letter to fellow evolutionist Richard Dawkins which was subsequently quoted by The Daily Telegraph, Oxford University atheist Dr. [[Daniel Came]] wrote concerning Dawkins' refusal to debate the Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted [[Atheism and cowardice|as cowardice]] on your part."

...No doubt being very publicly [[Atheism and cowardice|labeled a coward]] and having a worldwide grassroots anti-evolution campaign launched by a leading biblical creation organization contributed to the already [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive Richard Dawkins]] being a very grumpy and irritable old man...

Richard Dawkins may have had a chip on his shoulder as well post the William Lane Craig debate challenge and charges of cowardice. His abrasive remarks to Rebecca Watson could have been Dawkins trying to be a "big man on the atheist campus". Well, if this is the case, Dawkins's remarks didn't work out so well, did they?

The Elevatorgate has caused the [[Atheist factions|factious atheist community]] to be even more fractured in a significant way with various factions of atheism criticizing or supporting Richard Dawkins's remarks after the Elevatorgate incident.

While atheism has been publicly humbled and in a state of confusion and factionism, Bible believers and believers in biblical creation are energized and biblical Christianity is growing explosively as can be seen in the data and articles below.<ref>[Will future historians see May through August of 2011 as being a major turning point in the Christianity vs. atheism/Darwinism culture war]</ref>}}

See also:

*[[Decline of atheism]]

*[[Global atheism]]

*[[Global Christianity]]

== Disharmony, factionalism and global decline of atheism ==
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]</ref> See: [[Global Christianity]]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

''See also:'' [[Atheist factions]]

Jacques Rousseau wrote in the Daily Maverick concerning Elevatorgate, "Some might observe that we indulge in these squabbles fairly frequently."<ref>[http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-07-13-sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones-but-words-can-rip-my-soul Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can rip my soul]</ref> An ex-atheist wrote: "As an Atheist for 40 years, I noticed that there is not just a wide variety of Atheist positions, but there exists an actual battle between certain Atheist factions.<ref>[http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/The%20Reasoning%20Atheist.htm http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/The%20Reasoning%20Atheist.htm Atheism Analyzed]</ref>

=== Decline of atheism and the explosive growth of global Christianity ===

See also: [[Global Christianity]]

In 2011, the ''American Spectator'' declared concerning research published in the ''International Bulletin of Missionary Research'':
{{cquote|The report estimates about 80,000 new [[Christianity|Christians]] every day, 79,000 new [[Islam|Muslims]] every day, and 300 fewer [[atheism|atheists]] every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the [[Western World|West]], while religion is thriving in the Global South, where [[Charismatic movement|charismatic Christianity]] is exploding."<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheist leaders and immoral relationships]]
*[[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Atheism and women]]
*[[Atheism and rape]]
*[[Atheism and marriageability]]
*[[Atheism and bestiality]]
*[[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]
*[[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

'''Comedy and satire:'''

*[[Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win|Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win]]
*[[Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline|The atheist and evolutionist helpline]]
*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]]
*[[Essay: Atheists say the darnedest things!|Atheists say the darnedest things!]]
*[[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]]

'''Essays:'''

*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category: New Atheism]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2013-11-07T22:18:24Z

Dsherman:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/was-barack-obama-married-in-college/</ref>
|religion=see [[Obama's religion]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (reportedly born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]]. Through heavy use of [[early voting]] by the Democrat political machine, Obama was elected president in 2008 with 365 [[electoral vote]]s and 53% of the popular vote. In 2012 he was elected to a second term with 332 electoral votes and 51% of the popular vote. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008 Candidate Comparison: Top Contributors 2008 Cycle]. OpenSecrets.org.</ref>, and spending more than a billion dollars from special interests to attain reelection in 2012.<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php 2012 Presidential Race]. OpenSecrets.org [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 Opensecrets.org Barack Obama], 33% Individual contributions, 67% large and corporate.</ref>

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During his campaigns Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" and has been portrayed as saying that entrepreneurs and employers deserve no credit for building their businesses.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On March 1, 2013 Obama issued [[Executive Order|executive orders]] to implement his [[Budget sequester|sequester]] of budget cuts which<ref>http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/27/dnc-boosts-obama-sequester-job-loss-threat-of-750000-to-2-million</ref> has been widely criticized for destroying jobs in what was an anemic and fragile recovery.<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-26/news/chi-20130226-foys_briefs_1_sequester-president-obama-press-secretary-jay-carney President Obama's sequester,] ''Chicago Tribune'', February 26, 2013.</ref>

Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse Obama for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 presidential election]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Following the 2011 debt ceiling standoff between Obama and House Republicans,<ref name=Swann-Aug>{{cite web|url=http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8 |title=United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered to 'AA+' on Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |publisher= [[Standard & Poor's]] |date=August 5, 2011 |accessdate=April 3, 2013}}</ref> the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]] and climbing.<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> One of his most well known tactics is blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2010 with no national concensus or [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Americans deaths in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership compared with the preceding eight years of George Bush, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service'''.</ref> Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he he took credit for the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's successor, [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]] confirmed the [[Benghazi Attack]] which killed four State Department employees, was motivated by revenge.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack], By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN, September 13, 2012.</ref> Bin Laden's killing, however had negligible impact on Obama's approval ratings.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre gaffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe].''The Hill''.</ref> Even the ''New York Times'' was critical of Obama's incessant boasting about the killing of bin Laden.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/critics-pounce-on-obamas-trumpeting-of-bin-laden-death.html?_r=0 Obama Trumpets Killing of Bin Laden, and Critics Pounce], By PETER BAKER and MICHAEL D. SHEAR, April 27, 2012.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives called for Obama to release his birth certificate he produced a document that he claimed was his birth certificate on April 27, 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of Obama's eligibility and questioned whether the alleged "birth certificate" was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

The original claims that Obama was born in Kenya come from the Obamas themselves. In 1991, Obama's literary agent, Acton & Dystel, published a promotional booklet that stated that Obama was born in Kenya. <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/publisher-s-1991-booklet-says-barack-obama-was-born-kenya</ref> The claim that Obama was born in Kenya remained on the agent's web site until 2007. <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007</ref> Internet archives confirm this information. <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html</ref> In addition to the information from literary agents, Michelle Obama stated in an interview that Kenya is Obama's "homeland".<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzJz2A2N1c</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments has accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 when his mother discovered Barack Obama Sr. was already married to a woman living in Kenya.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2024819/Barack-Obamas-father-Bigamist-drunk-wife-beater.html Barack Obama's father: Bigamist, drunk and wife-beater], By Ian Birrell, 12 August 2011. dailymail.co.uk This is one of the first misleading statements about Barack Obama when he was introduced to America as Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Advance publicity billed him as the "son of Kenyan economist" when infact Obama Sr. was forced out of the graduate program at Harvard because of his bigamy. He returned to Kenya. Obama at the age 9 once briefly met his father who served in the corrupt Kenyan socialist regime's Department of [[Economic Planning]]. Obama Sr. killed himself in a drunken car accident.</ref> When Obama was 2 years old his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. At age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then abandoned him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) <ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> so she could return to Indonesia after her divorce. Obama's grandfather arranged for his friend, the noted communist writer [[Frank Marshall Davis]], to serve as a mentor and role model for an impressionable African-American youth.

Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was an intern and she was on staff at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> Dispite company policy prohibiting relations between staff and interns, the two started dating. The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1992,<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-anniversary-20-years-married_n_1935840.html Huffington Post says it was October 3, 1992.]</ref> were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a [[community organizer]] (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. The school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians are Muslim). In ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama writes, "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to my mother that I had made faces during [[Koran]]ic studies."<ref>''Dreams from My Father'', by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996. [http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dreams_From_My_Father_Principles_+_Values.htm]</ref> ''Insight Magazine'' first reported [[Hillary Clinton]]'s organization had "questions about Obama’s Muslim background: ''Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a [[Madrassa]] as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?"''<ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2899/hillary-clinton-agrees-with-schlussel-obama-suspicious-deceptive-on-muslim-background/ Hillary Clinton Agrees With Schlussel: Obama Suspicious, Deceptive on Muslim Background], By Debbie Schlussel, January 19, 2007.</ref>

In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu where he began substance abuse and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/obama-pot-smoking-details_n_1545904.html Obama Pot-Smoking Details Revealed In David Maraniss Book], ''The Huffington Post'', By Luke Johnson, 05/25/2012 . </ref> He was accepted through a scholarship for disadvantaged minorities while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At this elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and couldn't make the starting lineup of the state champion basketball team his senior year. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles,<ref name=msnbc /> and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he published an anti-military tirade embracing Soviet General Secretary [[Leonid Brezhnev]]'s <ref>Obama supported CPSU General Secretary Brezhnev's foreign policy over both Presidents [[Jimmy Carter]] and Ronald Reagan's decision to deploy the MX Missile in Europe. [http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1124/112439.html Brezhnev offers Schmidt moratorium on nuclear missiles], Elizabeth Pond, ''CS Monitor'', November 24, 1981. See also [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article/original.pdf Breaking the War Mentality], Barack Obama, Columbia ''Sundial'', March 10, 1983.</ref> proposal for a nuclear freeze in the campus newspaper and allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the ''Harvard Law Review''. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue his political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />

===Early Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to help pay off some of his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''. [http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/ Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume] ''analyzethis.net''. </ref>
====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs />

From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago <ref>The Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC)</ref> funded with a $25,000 grant by [[Bill Ayers]]' Woods Fund. The ''New York Times'' reported he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car<ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> however stories vary wildly. Jerry Kellman, who hired him, says it was "$10,000 a year and a $2,000 car allowance". Obama himself gave different numbers; his memoir says $10,000 (as well as the car), in his Wesleyan speech he gave it as "$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car", and when he announced his candidacy for president, it was "a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year".

Ryan Lizza at ''The New Republic'' reported that "Jean Rudd of the Woods Fund...had provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama". Ari Berman reported in ''The Nation'' that the "[Woods Fund] gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama". CBS Channel 2 in Chicago ran a story with a document showing that Obama's proposed salary in 1987 was $25,000, a number that the Obama campaign confirmed while insisting at the same time his original salary was $13,000.<ref>[http://theobamafile.com/obamaworks.htm Community Organizing], The Obama File. http://theobamafile.com.</ref>

During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. Obama abandoned the fight against asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project to pursue personal interests and a career by enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law including suing Citibank to force them into making [[Subprime loan|subprime mortgage]]s to unqualified minority borrowers.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html A Poisonous Cocktail: Expanding the Community Reinvestment Act], Peter Schweizer, ''Forbes'', 10.05.09. In ''Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank'', lead attorney Obama alleged that although his clients had been denied mortgages "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," they were really victims of institutional racism. The suit was brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act, so called affirmative action mortgage lending. The plaintiffs won $60,000, Obama and two other attorneys were paid $950,000.</ref> After graduating from Harvard he was hired by Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1991-1992, Project Vote====
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with defeating an incumbent Democrat in the primary and electing U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />

====1992-2004, Lecturer at University of Chicago====
Obama taught part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. Though Obama erroneously describes himself as a "constitutional law professor"<ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-complains-of-being-constrained-by-a-system-founding-father-put-place</ref>, he was actually only a senior lecturer and the class he taught the most times was called "Current Issues in Racism and the Law".<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/20/obamas-favorite-course-to-teach-at-the-university-of-chicago-revealed/</ref> He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year<cite>, and a senior lecturer from 1996-2004. After Obama was criticized for lying about his job title, the University of Chicago released a statement stating that senior lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time, tenured track position several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>

====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>

==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered for a fundraising event in the early career of Barack Obama hosted by [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Besides Obama, those in attendance were Ayers wife [[Bernardine Dohrn]],<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> and Carl Davidson, veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] just prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent [[Alice Palmer]], who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.

===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former [[Black Panther]] and Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. Michelle Obama opposed taking on an such an iconic figure dear to the community and threatened divorce.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html New book claims Michelle Obama prepared divorce papers to separate from Barack], By Daniel Bates, 16 May 2012. dailymail.co.uk</ref> Establishment Democrats considered Obama "a white man in blackface".<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/transcript-29/ PBS Frontline Transcript, The Choice 2012.</ref> Rush said of Obama, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool,” adding, “We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees.”<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/bobby-rush-in-2000-obamas-a-harvard-educated-fool-who-thinks-he-knows-all-about-the-civil-rights-protests/ Bobby Rush in 2000: Obama a Harvard ‘educated fool’ who ‘thinks he knows all about’ the ‘civil rights protests’], Daily Caller, 03/28/2012.</ref>Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now....One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />

===State Senate Voting Record===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 [[War on Terror|anti-War rally]] in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama took the rather unpopular position against "dumb wars".]]
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances Obama approached the newly crowned president of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, whom Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}
Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''
After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===U.S. Senate Voting Record===
Obama's incomplete term in the U.S. Senate was largely unoteworthy. In voting against raising the [[debt limit]] in 2006 Obama famously said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."<ref>''Washington Post'' FACT CHECKER, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html Annotating Obama’s 2006 speech against boosting the debt limit], Glenn Kessler, 01/15/2013.</ref><ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> In 2008 as candidate for president Obama called George W. Bush's request to raise the debt limit "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic.] Youtbue.</ref>

The ''National Journal'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> and voted against the [[minimum wage]] bill<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> he introduced because it included a provision to pay active duty U.S. troops. He voted for the $700 billion TARP program to bailout the big banks after receiving more than $120,000 in contributions from [[Fannie Mae]], a government sponsored entity<ref>more than any other political candidate for office since 1989. [http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers], By Lindsay Renick Mayer, September 11, 2008. opensecrets.org</ref> taken into conservatorship for mismanaging its affairs and responsible for all the big bank's problems.

According to Opensecrets.org, of the 671,269 contributions to Obama during his time in the Senate, [[Goldman Sachs]], JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley were among the top 20 biggest money donors to his campaigns. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008][http://www.votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=9490] All four subsequently received approximately $70 billion in taxpayer assisted [[bailout]] money from the [[TARP]] program he voted for.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/14/business/14bailout.graphic2.html ''Beneficiary Banks'', New York Times. 2008-10-14.]</ref> UBS AG, a foreign bank and the 12th largest donor to Obama,<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> was fined $780 billion in February 2009 in a U.S. Federal Court on charges it helped thousands of Americans evade taxes.<ref>[http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20090219/FREE/902199983 ''UBS fined $780 million in tax evasion scandal,''] Investment News, February 19, 2009.</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama's hands were not stained with a vote for the Iraqi war resolution, as he was not in the Senate at the time; a minority of Democrats who wanted to punish candidates for exhibiting [[bi-partisan]]ship began calling for his candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}As the contest in Iowa drew near and the former First Lady's inevitability was being usurped by a challenger, Hillary Clinton organizers began circulating rumors that Obama was secretly a Muslim.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/barackemail/ Obama Under the Clinton Microscope], By JEFF ZELENY, ''New York Times'', December 10, 2007; [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/06/clinton-volunteers-anti-obama-e-mail-causes-stir/ Clinton volunteer's sending of anti-Obama e-mail causes stir]. December 6, 2007. CNN; [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=92143 Hillary Clinton Press Release - Sen. Obama Rewrites History], December 2, 2007, references Obama in the Muslim school in Indonesia in 3rd grade, quoting the ''The Los Angeles Times'', 3/15/07; [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article1995587.ece Obama ‘was educated in madrassa’], Tim Reid and Tom Baldwin, ''The Times'' (London), January 20, 2007.</ref> Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>

====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2013, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Five years into Obama's presidency the number of people holding jobs still was 3 million below the all time high of 138 million<ref>The effectiveness of [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|Stimulus]] and deficits: [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112811 Job growth under President Obama's first term;] Source: United States Department of Labor.</ref> workers - despite an increase of 10 million people in population over the same period of time.<ref>[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112809 U.S. Population growth during Obama's first four years in office.] Source: U.S. Census Bureau.</ref> Under Obama and Senate Democrats<ref>The Democratic controlled Senate did not propose, vote on, or pass a budget for nearly five years. [http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/politics/senate-budget-bill/index.html Senate passes its first budget proposal in four years,] Ted Barrett and Alison Harding, CNN, March 23, 2013.</ref> budget management, the United States suffered its largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and its credit-worthiness downgraded from Standard & Poors. Obama assured Americans that unemployment would not rise above 8% if his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted, however it rose and stagnated in the 8-10% range<ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref> for the entirety of his first term.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]
=====Stimulus=====
:''See also: [[Recovery Summer]]''
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass a sweeping Stimulus package<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1).<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref> The report of the Congressional Budget Office mandated by law stated that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his promise of bipartisanship,<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref> the bill passed the House 244-188 on January 28, 2009 with 11 Democrats voting with the entire Republican caucus against,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of [[Backdoor_spending_authority#Backdoor_tax_expenditures|backdoor tax expenditures]]<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest direct [[new spending]] on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming millions of Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate his accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
=====[[Sequestration]]=====
According to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning journalist [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'', Obama misled the American people in a Presidential debate only two weeks before the 2012 election when he said, "The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,”<ref>[http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-22/opinions/37238840_1_jack-lew-treasury-secretary-rob-nabors Obama’s sequester deal-changer,] By Bob Woodward, ''Washington Post'', February 22, 2013.</ref> when in fact his chief budget negotiator and current Chief of Staff, [[Jack Lew]], made a call to Democrat [[Harry Reid]] at 2:30 pm on July 27, 2011 with the proposal after clearing it with Obama,<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/fact-check-woodward-wrote-that-obama-administration-proposed-sequester/ Fact-check: Woodward wrote that Obama administration proposed sequester]. dailycaller.com </ref> as fully documented in Woodward's book, ''The Price of Politics''. Federal Reserve Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] warned of immediate jobloss of about 750,000 jobs - about the same level as under George W. Bush<ref>[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109262 Monthly Jobloss under George W. Bush, Jan 2007 - Jan 2009]. See also [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109266 Initial Unemployment Claims] over the same period, annualized. Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.</ref> - if Obama's budget and economic plans were allowed to take effect.<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/bernanke-burden-recovery/ Bernanke: Spending cuts add 'significant' burden to recovery,] By Annalyn Kurtz, CNN February 26, 2013.</ref>

Woodward, who's reporting on [[Watergate]] is credited with toppling the administration of [[Richard Nixon]], told Wolf Blitzer of CNN he was told by a senior White House official he'd regret talking about the President Obama's positions on the sequester.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2 Bob Woodward: White House Threatened Me On Sequester,] businessinsider.com </ref>

====Healthcare mandates====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the unpopular Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act originated in the [[Democratic]]ally controlled House and was amended and passed the Senate just prior to Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s death largely along party lines with a significant number of Democrats voting to oppose. In what was construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill if given the chance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the Democratic [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandated that everyone purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and was upheld by the [[Supreme Court]].

====Regulatory reform====
Obama criticized the "revolving door" of government and business.<ref>"We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-welcoming-senior-staff-and-cabinet-secretaries-white-house REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE,] January 21, 2009. whitehouse.gov </ref> After appointing [[Peter Orszag]] his first Budget Director to dole out the stimulus cash, Orszag resigned to become Citigroup's Vice Chairman of Global Banking. Citigroup was the recipient of $476 billion in [[bailout]] money - more than any other bank - after the disastrous [[Financial crisis of 2008]].<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/citibank_received_more_bailout.html Citigroup Received More Bailout Money Than Any Other Bank,] By Nitasha Tiku, 3/16/11. </ref> Before the bailout, Orszag's expert opinion of the chances of a mortgage meltdown were 1 in 500,000.<ref>[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/stiglitzrisk.pdf Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard,] by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jonathan M. Orszag and Peter R. Orszag. Fannie Mae Papers, Volume 1, Issue 2, March 2002, Conclusion p.6. </ref>

====Environment and energy====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Reverses Clinton era gay discrimination====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated with President Clinton and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while barring openly gay [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref> The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/>

====Labor law and compensation to 9/11 first responders====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsors agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

From the Boston Globe:
<blockquote>
'The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.'
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast.' <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

A commentator says:
<blockquote>
'Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.' <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
====National Defense====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>
====Al Qaeda and Libya====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, leader of Libya for 41 years, responded to the violence<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legitimate steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to impose [[sanctions]], and later passed a resolution to protect civilians. Obama, without approval from Congress and over the objections of his own National Security staff,<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Secretary of Defence [[Robert Gates]], National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, and [[White House]] counterterrorism chief [[John O. Brennan]] all opposed the action. Obama later said, "if we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]], in an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by ''The New York Times'', which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Gaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>
Gaddafi wrote to Obama and told him he bore no ill will. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
=====Aid to violent Islamists=====
A March 29, 2011 article in the ''[[Washington Post]]'' included these paragraphs:
{{Cquote|"It’s almost a certitude that at least part” of the Libyan opposition includes members of al-Qaeda, said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama. Riedel said that anti-Gaddafi elements in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have had “very close associations with al-Qaeda” dating back years....I would hope that we now have a good sense of the opposition in Libya and can say that this is 2 percent, not 20 percent,” Riedel said. “If we don’t, then we are running the risk of helping to bring to power a regime that could be very dangerous.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-opposition-includes-a-small-number-of-al-qaeda-fighters-us-officials-say/2011/03/29/AFRlXWyB_story.html</ref>}}

This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> at the urging of Hillary Clinton<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=3&hp& </ref> and over the objections of his National Security Council, Obama signed a Presidential Finding authorizing support for the rebel jihadis.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

By October 2011, [[Libyan rebel fighting group]]s with support from [[NATO]] overtook the capital and toppled the government. Gaddafi was captured and brutally and sadistically murdered.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzeLLL9V-c Leading from behind - a critique of Obama foreign policy]</ref> The jihadis were immediately recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the new legitimate government. Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, announced [[Sharia]] will be the source for all legislation and all laws conflicting with Sharia are null and void.<ref name="Sharia">[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse - Daily Telegraph]</ref> Abdel Rahim al-Kib, the country's interim prime minister, echoed Jalil's words days later.<ref>[http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207953.html New Libyan PM backs Islamic sharia law]</ref> The al Qaeda flag was flown above the Benghazi courthouse, and reports surfaced that the Libyan jihadis had imposed Sharia law in some parts of the country even earlier.<ref name="Sharia" /> By February 17, 2013, four foreign nationals were arrested for distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/17/libya-arrests-suspected-foreign-missionaries Libya arrests foreign 'missionaries' Four foreign nationals accused of distributing Christian literature,] a charge that could carry the death penalty, Chris Stephen guardian.co.uk, Sunday 17 February 2013.</ref>

=====U.S. Ambassador murdered=====
:{{main|Benghazi Attack}}
With several U.S.embassies besieged on the anniversary of the [[September 11 attacks]], White House Press Secretary [[Jay Carney]] declared there was no reason to believe the attack on the sovereign territory of the United States consulate in Benghazi, less than two months before the [[2012 Presidential election]] which killed Americans, was a terrorist attack.
{{Cquote|The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive.}}
This became the official White House line. Between jokes with [[Jon Stewart]] on the ''Comedy Channel'' Obama said the death of Americans was "not optimal".<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/18/Obama-Benghazi-murders-not-optimal Interview with Jon Stewart of the ''Daily Show''].</ref> When pressed by reporters, who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Press Secretary Carney argued “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”

Leading suspected jihadis in the murders and terrorist attack were the local Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Shariah, known to have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.<ref>http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/19/when-an-obama-adviser-called-benghazi-an-al-qaeda-hotbed/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway</ref> A commander of the terrorist group boasted jovially about the attack over drinks with reporters for the ''[[New York Times]]'' in Benghazi<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world</ref>.<ref>http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/frappe-libya-attack/</ref>
=====[[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]=====
Two more Americans were killed, along with 35 others, after being taken hostage by rebel jihadists in Mali shortly after the Libyan upheaval.<ref>[http://world.time.com/2013/01/21/algeria-37-foreigner-hostages-killed-in-attack/ Algeria: 37 Foreigner Hostages Killed in Attack], Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2013. ''TIME'' magazine.</ref>

Hillary Clinton testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the wake of the Benghazi murders under her stewardship, that weapons and fighters equipped by the Obama administration made their way to [[Mali]] and [[Algeria]]:
{{cquote|There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-militants-used-weapons-libya-algeria-attack-154222664.html Clinton says militants used weapons from Libya in Algeria attack,] Reuters, Jan 23, 2013.]</ref>}}

====Afghanistan====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> T

====Mexico====
[[File:Eric Holder.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Eric Holder]] remains as Attorney General despite being held in Contempt of Congress. Others such as Rahm Emanual have departed in wake of the Fast & Furious revelations.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/fast_and_furious_in_a_rotten_nutshell.html#ixzz27iRBCN28 Fast and Furious in a Rotten Nutshell], Ronald Kolb, ''American Thinker'', October 7, 2011,</ref>]]
:''Main article:'' '''[[Operation Fast and Furious]]'''
In May of 2010, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.
====Guantanamo Bay====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
: ''Main article: [[Presidential Election 2012]]''
===2011: Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011: Death of Osama bin Laden===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf1SLhNoUNY Nobel Prize Winner with a kill list].</ref> that Osama bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated a compound in [[Abbottabad raid|Abottobad]], Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Attacks on Americans and American consulate bureaus have since escalated as reprisals for bin Laden's death. [[Al Qaeda]], once presumed broken and on the run, now functions openly throughout North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Eurasia. Relations with longtime ally Pakistan have become strained. Obama experienced only a temporary blip in approval polls.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref><ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>

=== 2012: Possible Ties to ACORN ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

===2012: "You didn't build that" Controversy===
{{main|You didn't build that}}

On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

===Results===

On November 6, 2012 Barack Obama won reelection with 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206.<ref>http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012</ref> Obama received 51% of the popular vote (65,899,660 votes) to Romney's 47% (60,932,152 votes).<ref>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf</ref>

==See also==
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]

==External links==

*[http://barackobamadoubletalk.com/ Barack Obama Doubletalk]
*[http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/03/national-journal-obama-facing-crisis-over-incompetence/ National Journal: Obama facing crisis over incompetence]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{2012 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Current Heads of government]]
[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Faith

2013-10-15T21:44:46Z

Dsherman:

[[Image:Faith.jpg|right]]
'''Faith'''<ref>1200–50; Middle English feith < Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit < Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust.</ref> is confidence about something unseen, such as the achievement of [[God]]'s will. It includes a belief beyond what is materialistic.

Jesus's definition of '''faith''' was this: "Faith is the foundation of our hopes, the evidence of the unseen." ([[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#11:1|His Epistle to the Hebrews]])

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a [[causation|causal]] role by the believer in an outcome<ref>For example, the Biblical [[Peter]]'s walking on water based on his faith.</ref> or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

== Faith in God vs. secular psychology for solving addictions and other personal problems ==

''See also:'' [[Ineffectivness of counseling psychology]]

The Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref> Studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling [[psychology]] for [[alcoholism]] receive hardly any benefit at all.<ref>http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/psychological-treatments-for-alcoholism.php</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|right|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit of our God]]." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}

The website ''The Berean Call'' has a number of articles on various false claims and unbiblical notions that many practitioners of counseling psychology promote.<ref>http://www.thebereancall.org/topic/psychology</ref>

Faith plays a central role in overcoming [[addiction]]. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming [[recidivism]]. This role is unique to Christian faith and has not been shown with regard to other religions' belief systems or to secular humanist ideologies.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on [[television]], or standing up to a [[bully]] or unpleasant situations. Jesus reprimanded the [[Apostles]] for their [[faithless]] fear: "The disciples went and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We're going to drown!' He replied, 'You of little faith, why are you so afraid?' Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm."<ref>Mt 8:25-26 (NIV)</ref>

Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore the [[devil]] and all his antics.

Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result. "Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on," and Jesus cured him.<ref>Mark 2:4</ref>

==Frequency==
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]

==Expression==
A classic statement of faith in the [[Bible]] was by the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] centurion of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:5-10;&version=49; Matthew 8:5-10], who expressed his confidence that [[Jesus]] could cure his beloved servant from a distance without even seeing him. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized the importance and value of faith to his disciples.

Faith is expressed in [[Greek language|Greek]] using the term ''pistis'', and in [[Latin]] using the term ''fides''. Faith is mentioned in 229 verses in the [[New Testament]] ([[KJV]]), but only twice in the much larger [[Old Testament]] ([[KJV]]).<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com</ref> In attempt to convert [[Jews]] to [[Christianity]], [[Paul]] described [[Abraham]]'s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son [[Isaac]] to [[God]] as an act of faith, though the [[Old Testament]] did not describe it with that term.

Faith is strengthened by prayer ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%2020;&version=9; Jude 20]). For those who strengthen their faith, [[Jesus]] promised "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."<ref>John 14:12 (NIV).</ref>

Life itself may be the manifestation of God's faith. Decay and death may be the manifestation of a lack or denial of faith.

==Biblical examples==

Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11:1. It states: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (NIV).</ref>

The King James Version expresses this passage as: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The Greek word translated as "substance" is `hupostasis', meaning setting under (support). The Greek word for "evidence"`elegchos' meaning proof.,<ref>J. Strong, 1890, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.</ref> The Bible thus distinguishes clearly between the leap of faith of Kirkegaard and a faith based on acknowledgement of the evidence presented by God within our own experiences in this world. Paul, in Romans 1:17-20 explains that faith has its basis in the observed expression of God's existence in this universe: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen...."

[[Paul]] indicated that exceptional faith may be a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit

As discussed above, a potential reference to faith is [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped.
Genesis 22:12
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 

==Martin Luther on Faith==

Luther in his Table Talk papers writes this thought provoking and rather difficult passage on faith:

"This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that he is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that he seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and is more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith."

==The Moral Basis of Biblical Faith==

The biblical expression of faith is belief in what God reveals to man to be so. Since New Testament times, that means belief in what God reveals to be so concerning Jesus Christ. There is a steady progression through time of what God reveals and so belief also finds expression in progressive content and emphasis. What God reveals to Adam, to Noah, to Moses (and through them), to the prophets, to the Ninevites, to Simeon and Anna, Mary, to the Apostles, differ in content and in emphasis, but the culmination of the content of faith is the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The moral basis of faith is the positive response of belief, and the obedience of one's life to the requirement implied by the revelation. That is why Adam (and his generation) was not required to believe what Noah was required to believe, why Noah was not required to believe what Abraham was required to believe, and why Abraham was not required to believe what Moses was required to believe. Moses, and his generation, was not required to believe what Isaiah was required to believe, until the time of Jesus. Nor were they each allowed to believe less than what was required of them to believe, as if they were of a previous generation and a previous revelation.

The moral basis of Faith continues on in effect, content and emphasis, since the time of the Son of God on earth. That is why the "good man" is required to believe in the Son of God preached to him, as He, the Son of God, is the source of his goodness, and the forgiver of his badness, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "bad man" required to believe in Him who bore his sin, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "gentile", wherever found, of whatever stage, required to live up to what is given him by his conscience and whatever good has come to him through his culture, and believe in the light God is actually giving him, and in the Jesus being preached to him, but not required to believe in and practice the Law of Moses; the Jew required to keep the Law given him, and then to despair at not having fulfilled it, and believe in the Son of God being revealed to him; the infant respond, as infants can, and not as adolescents and adults are required, each in his own order, until the greater revelation comes, and separation from the dominance and protection of the elders; and why an embryo aborted is required to respond as only an embryo can, which God alone knows, and not be required to be at the level of response he would have been moments and days and months and years later, if he would have been let live - saved - though the embryo would never have known how - by the Cross of the sin bearing Savior, who knew him well and loved him. "to him whom much has been given, of him much will be required."

==The natural and the supernatural aspects of Faith==
Faith is a gift from God that may be viewed two ways. One is clearly an intrusion or at least and introjection into our ordinary lives. Under this aspect, we see it as pure grace. "For by grace are you saved through faith, and this is not as a result of your deeds, It is God's gift and not something from ourselves". Our response, is from the extremity of our situation and as a clear product of something outside ourselves - the new word of God, the message concerning Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Even the ability to hear and understand is given to us from above, "Faith comes by hearing, and "hearing" itself, comes by the Word of God". And thus we call out, from the depth and from consciousness, for salvation. " Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord, will be saved/"

The other aspect of Faith is not by intrusion or introjection, but by infusion and irradiation. This too is of the grace of God. Whereas the first aspect had come to us at our extremity from without, this aspect comes to us from within and around, pervading the so-called natural structures that we experience every day, that are so supportive of stability, confidence, trust and hope. Good parenting, solidity of home and provision, loving faithfulness among friends as we grow, continual exposure to the truth of the Word of God (and truth is always therapeutic), strengthens our faith, and our expectation for the continuing faithfulness and involvement of a loving and good God. Faith seems so natural, so in accord, with our experience, that we could even be surprised that it could have been otherwise. Here we experience, most often, not a crisis of faith, but the need to give ourselves more fully to Him in whom we are believing. Under this aspect, God is to be appreciated and acknowledged for being our good and heavenly Father. The Old Testament presents us with the reality of this aspect of faith. Amidst even the miraculous events as the parting of the "Red" Sea, and the many deliverances Israel experience so beyond their natural ability to effect, little is said, is acknowledged consciously, of the quality of faith itself. It is air that a fish is most conscious of, not his home in the water.

==Faith: the Access to Reality==
Christianity demands Faith and insists that Faith be turned into sight. "Do you believe, Thomas, because you have seen. Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe." Throughout the New Testament, this theme occurs, belief in Jesus, belief in the Heavenly Father, belief in the readiness of God to still waves, cause you too to walk on water, to return a dead girl back to her grieving, believing mother, to see small insignificant things as a seed grow, as if miraculously of itself, into a startling display of fruit to eat and protection for birds, all of this, with only the sky to limit, comes into our lives, according to Jesus, if we have Faith. Reality is gained by the exercise of Faith, a reality unattainable by the ordinary means frequented by men.

But this reality attained, so extraordinary in this sordid and marred sin-infested world, is seen to be the "normal" reality of the Kingdom of Heaven, just waiting to enter in. Entirely right in the presence of the Kingdom of God and the King Himself for the dead boy to get up from his bier to run to his mother, entirely right that that adulteress be pardoned, strengthened, challenged, and hold her head up high once again, entirely right the demons come out of the tormented boy to be commanded to go to the place that God has prepared for them, all entirely right at the entrance of this new reality of the Kingdom of Heaven among us, and the King Himself, Jesus. The overwhelming of reality, by Reality.

As God is palpable in Jesus, so the Reality of the Kingdom of God is palpable, and can be seen, on this earth. The entrance to the Garden was by faith, but the reality of the garden is as tangible as was Jesus eating fish with his disciples after he got up from the dead. As much as the New Testament presents Faith as the entrance to the Kingdom, so does it insist that Faith, perhaps not fully in this world, shall turn to sight in the end... and on the way. "It is not apparent what we who are called the children of God shall yet be, but we know that we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is."

==Faith as a virtue==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|right|210px|The 'walking on water' episode, which both showed and tested St Peter's faith (painting by Konrad Witz).]]
[[St Paul]] identified faith, [[hope]] and [[love]] (or [[charity]]) as the three greatest [[virtue]]s that are central to Christianity, and this idea is repeated and elaborated upon throughout Christian tradition. Faith is put first because it provides the foundation upon which the other two are built: a faithful heart and mind cause one to have hope, and hope causes one to have love for God and one's fellow man.

In [[Dante]]'s [[Divine Comedy]], [[St Peter]] is most identified with faith. This is appropriate, since he was the 'rock' on which the Church was built, just as a Christian life must be rooted in faith. Peter's great faith is shown in Matthew 14:28-31, when he is briefly able to walk on water until doubt enters his mind.

Christian philosopher [[Robert Merrihew Adams]] wrote a book, ''The Virtue of Faith'', to defend the idea of faith as virtuous. Consider the case of a loved one accused of some wrongdoing, but who protests their innocence - our relationship with them creates a special ethical obligation to believe what they say, which does not apply to the protestations of innocence of strangers; at the same time, that obligation is not absolute, but can be overturned by the evidence. Adams uses this example to argue that some beliefs we are ethically obliged to hold, and argues that the existence of God could be such a belief for the believer.

Contrary to Adams' view is that favored by many atheists, classically expressed by William Kingdon Clifford, in his 1877 essay ''The Ethics of Belief'', which states "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." However, while Clifford can point to individual cases where believing things without evidence is unethical, those cases fail to demonstrate that his principle is true in every case, and he ignores valid cases such as those which Adams cites which lead to the opposite conclusion.

{{clear}}

== Unique Role Within Christianity ==
Christianity is unique among religions in that its followers are defined by faith rather than by adherence to a prescribed code. St Paul makes this distinction clear in Galatians 3:24-25:
{{cquote|The law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come, when we should be justified through faith; and now that faith has come, the tutor's charge is at an end.}}
That is to say, whereas [[Judaism]] required (and still requires) its followers to obey the law, Christianity begins with faith, and any moral or ethical decisions must follow from that. In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'.

==Other Definitions and Religions==

Outside of [[Christianity]], faith is misused as a synonym for "belief". The [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary, for example, includes this definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith</ref>

Alternatively, faith often refers to a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or evidence.

In the [[Koran]], the concept of submission to [[Allah]] is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.

Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone, specifically [[Christ]]. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]]. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], as it entails an active role for the believer himself for advancing good.

The literary critic Harold Bloom distinguishes Christianity from the other two dominant monotheistic religions in his book Agon by contrasting them with Gnosticism:

"Gnosticism polemically is decidedly not a faith, whether in the Christian sense, pisits, a believing that something was, is, and will be so; or in the Hebraic sense, emunah, a trusting in the Covenant. If religion is a binding, then Gnosticism is an unbinding, but not for the sake of things or persons merely as they are. Gnostic freedom is a freedom for knowledge, knowledge of what in the self, not in the psyche or soul, is Godlike, and knowledge of God beyond the cosmos. But also it is a freedom to be known, to be known by God, by what is alien to everything created, by what is alien to and beyond the stars and the cosmic system and our earth."

Faith is emphasized in Christianity but is unrecognized by the worldview of [[Philosophical Skepticism|philosophical skepticism]].
== See also ==

*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[Salvation]]
*[[Atheism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:religion]]
[[Category:philosophy]]

== External links ==
* Holding, James Patrick, [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html Fallacious Faith]
*[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/finding-faith-in-christ/video/finding-faith-in-christ Finding Faith in Christ], video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''

{{Virtues}}

Jesus Christ

2013-10-14T05:18:59Z

Dsherman:

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is believed by Christians to be the prophesied Jewish Messiah. He changed the world forever with teachings of [[love]] and [[faith]], using parables like the [[Prodigal Son]] that flow from the existence of [[God]]. "Jesus triumphed over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will."

According to Christian believers, Jesus is the only Son of God and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from God and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===The Pre-existence of Jesus before His incarnation===
Though it is commonly thought that Jesus had his beginning with His birth or with His conception in the womb of Mary, and that personality begins with birth and develops with age, the Person of Jesus on earth was one and the same Person as was the Son of God in the presence of the Father before the incarnation. That is why the transition of His becoming a man on earth is considered such a great act of humility and self forgetfulness - to have left it all, for us, for which He will always be honored and extolled.

Though he was in the form of God , He did not cling to this equality with God, but emptied himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are, and being found as a man, he was even humbler yet, even to accepting death, even on a cross. But God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all other names, so that all beings, in the heavens, and on the earth, and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus, and that every tongue should acclaim, Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

===The Flight to Egypt===

King Herod, in his thirst for power and his paranoia at the news that someone was born, whose "star from the east" indicated that there was indeed a claimant to his throne, the Messiah of Israel, sent his garrison, most probably from the fortress Herodian which over looked the town of Bethlehem, Bethlehem, the home of David, the most Illustrious of Israel's kings, would soon experience the death of its two years and under male children, in Herod's pursuit of retention of his power. This has been called the Massacre of the Innocents. But Jesus was not among them as his father Joseph, being warned in a dream, had spirited the family to Egypt. And there they remained until Herod was dead, and Archelaus, Herod's son, was reigning in his stead. But the "Holy Family" was not to return to Bethlehem, but to Nazareth of Galilee, and so Jesus would grow an Israelite and a Galilean, and his first disciples, Galileans. But the fight into Egypt and the return from Egypt to the land of Israel, is seen by the Gospel of Matthew to have another reason intended for it by the Father. The son of God in the writings of Moses was, of course, Israel itself, and the Prophet Hosea would later write, God Himself speaking, "When Israel was a youth, hadn't I loved him, and hadn't I called my son out of Egypt?" But Matthew would write, speaking of the return of Jesus to Israel, from Egypt, in direct reference to the Prophet Hosea's prophesy, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son", thereby letting us know, in his own way, who Jesus is - He is the Son of the Father, the son, who had and would not fail. He is Israel, the remnant, and through Him, the nations of the world would be blessed, along with His people, Israel. In this way does Matthew share in the kalaidoscopic image of who He is. He is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the Son of the Father, Israel, who not failing, neither in the forty day temptation in the wilderness, nor through any part of His life on earth, became worthy and holy to become the sacrifice for the sins of the others.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precincts, and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra-biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which would try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fulfillment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and [[Three Temptations of Christ|tried three times]] to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.
[[File:Hoffman Christ And The Rich Young Ruler.jpg|thumb|Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann (1824–1911), 1889.]]
'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
[[File:Cordero El Redentor y la mujer adultera.jpg|thumb|300px|left|El Redentor y la mujer adultera by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharisees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

===The Turning Point===

It was at the city built in honor of Herod's son Phillip, Ceasarea Philippi, dedicated to the worship of Pan at the subterraenean breakout of the spring which was tributary to the Jordon River, the Ban(Pan)ias, that Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I am?, Simon finally answered, You are the [[Messiah]], the Son of the Living God. Jesus responded that flesh and blood had not revealed this fact but His Father had. Then Jesus gave him his new name Peter, meaning rock, and told him that he and the Church to be built on the rock would be thrown against the very gates of Hades itself, gates which would be unable to withstand the onslaught, setting Hell's captives free. (See Example 5. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]). From that place of confession, and from the time of Peter's confession itself, Jesus began to refine to His disciples, excluding all doubt and ambiguity from their minds as to the purpose of His coming, what it was all about. He the Messiah had come to die. They were to go up to Jerusalem, and there he would be rejected and denounced by the priests and elders, handed over to the Gentiles, and be put to death. And so began the 3 days journey from Caesarea Philippi, then along the eastern shore of the Sea of Galillee, along the Jordon river valley, through Jericho, and then the ascent to Jerusalem, Jesus telling his followers repeatedly the same message of His rejection and death, and then, if they could take it in, in such a way as not to suppress from their consciousness the main message He needed to instill into their acceptance, that of his humiliation and death, His subsequent resurrection form the dead. As the Gospel of Mark would record the words of the Lord, "For the Son of Man has not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life for the ransom of many"

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''
[[Image:The Last Supper WM.jpg|right|300px]]
It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?" Luke 24:30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Revelation 3:20-21 (NIV)

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what He commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, though not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

"Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses, 
and He carried our pains; 
but we in turn regarded Him stricken, 
struck down by God, and afflicted." Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Matthew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet [[Isaiah]] might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.
[[File:Veronese Lamentation.jpg|thumb|left|[[Paolo Veronese]], Lamentation.]]
On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ
{{Clear}}

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]]. The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Michael Horner of [[Campus Crusade for Christ|CRU]] has an excellent resource which offers a defense of the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] entitled [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus really rise from the dead?]. In addition, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] offers [http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm an online audio library which defends the resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]]. In addition, legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], John Warwick Montgomery, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, [[Hugo Grotius]], Lord Caldecote, J. N. D. Anderson, [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ.<ref>
*[http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf]
*[http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery ]
*[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ]
*[http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2008/05/rules-of-evidence-tools-of-truth.html Rules of Evidence - Tools of Truth]
*[http://www.phc.edu/gj_philjohnsonpap.php JURIDICAL APOLOGISTS 1600-2000 AD]</ref>

===Appearances of Jesus to His followers===
For forty days after his rising from the dead Jesus made appearances to His followers. These appearances were different from other risings from the dead, both in the Old Testrament and in the New Testament. These others are best understood as resusitations from lifelessness.
That is, the people had really died, and really had been brought to life but there type of life was no different in kind from what it was before their death. A prime examploe in the New Testament was Lazarus. All of them, died a second time, waiting for the Resurrection. The very first to attain to the Resurrection was Jesus Christ, and as the first he came the "first fruits" of us all. The resurrected body of Jesus was both the same and different from what it was prior to His death. It could pass through "solids". It coulo be changed, if this be the right interpretation, in such a way as be unrecognizable. And yet it was no mere vision, unreality, or a non-physical "spiritual" reality. He could eat and drink and be touched and felt. He was real in the ways that we know realness. And we too, according to Paul, will be one with Him in having "spiritual bodies".
"And that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve, after that, He asppeared to 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living,though some have fallen asleep.Then He appeared to James, and then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me..."I Corinthians 15:5-8

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancée, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Jesus and the Holy Spirit==
The Holy Spirit was sometimes referred to as the Spirit of Jesus. This was to point out the special relationship that Jesus had to the Holy Spirit. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, rather than having been sired by Joseph. He was filled by the Holy Spirit from the time of His baptism at the Jordon river at the hands of his cousin John, and He was led by the Holy Spirit, not only into the desert to be tempted by the devil, but also all His life on earth. His empowerment to do "works" and miracles came through the Holy Spirit given Him, as the Holy Spirit would afterwards be given to all his followers, and not solely by virtue His being the Son of God. But, beyond this, there was a more special and unique relationship that Jesus had to the Holy Spirit. He taught, and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul would later echo, that the Holy Spirit would be given and poured out, to His followers through Jesus ascended to the Presence of the Father, and that, in some way, perhaps mysterious but concrete, Jesus Himself, would be with them once again, in and through the presence of the Holy Spirit which they would receive. He had gone back to the Father in order to return in a new and more complete way through the Holy Spirit. He would not leave them orphaned. This Holy Spirit, then, with Jesus and the Father, constituted the reality which would reverberate through the ages for all new believers being bought into the Church, the Body of Christ (for every body needs a spirit) - " In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shepherds. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Although it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Anointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Anointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often anointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has anointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "anointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Anointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== Resources on becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px||Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]

''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://creation.com/good-news Good news of Christianity]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[Messianic Prophecies]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Christian paintings]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Mark Twain, the Ice Storm, and Jesus Christ]

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]

Ben Carson

2013-10-12T23:21:53Z

Dsherman:

'''Ben Carson''', M.D., is Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at [[Johns Hopkins]]. He has since retired from medical practice. Although he received greater exposure with the television movie "Gifted Hands" which starred Cuba Gooding, Jr, he came to national attention for his remarks at the 2013 [[National Prayer Breakfast]].
* favors charter schools as part of a school choice program, saying that competition keeps schools from becoming complacent. [http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/ben-carson-education-attacks/2013/04/14/id/499393?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2Qd9Y52RN ]

His remarks were seen as criticizing President Obama, and made him the highest-profile black man to engage in such criticism.

See:
*[[school choice]]
*[[charter school]]

==Links==
*[http://m.christianpost.com/news/neurosurgeon-ben-carson-retires-from-surgery-becomes-columnist-for-washington-times-99878/ Neurosurgeon Ben Carson Retires From Surgery; Becomes Columnist for Washington Times]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2013-10-03T18:48:34Z

Dsherman: /* Christianity */

{{TOC right}}
'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)
==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]

==Religious debates==
===General Religion===
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]
===God===
# [[Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
===Atheism/Agnosticism===
# [[Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]

===The Bible===
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
===Christianity===
# [[Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?]] (on "virgin" Mary)
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]
#[[Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?]]
# [[Debate: Is America a Christian nation?]]
#[[Debate: Did Jesus Fulfill The Requirements For The Jewish Messiah?]]

===Judaism===
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
===Islam===
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
===Scientology===
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
===Founding Fathers===
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
===World Wars===
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
===U.S. Interventions===
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
===Civil War===
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
===Other===
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]

==Political debates==
===Conservative/Liberal===
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
#[[Debate: When are you lot just going to grow ?]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

===Political Parties===
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
===Political Figures===
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
====Barack Obama====
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Was it legally necessary for Obama to retake the Oath of Office?]]
====George W. Bush====
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
===Abortion===
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
===Gay Marriage===
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Should intersex people be allowed to marry?]]
===Religious Freedom/1st Amendment===
# [[Debate: Should Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals as free speech?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
===Guns/2nd Amendment===
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
===Immigration===
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
===Military/Interrogation===
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
===Drug Legalization===
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate:Solving the deficit]]
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
===Trade===
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
===Healthcare===
# [[Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
===Education===
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Should class room prayer be allowed in Public Schools?]]

===Foreign Policy===
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
====Middle East====
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]
====Europe====
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
===Environment===
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

==Scientific debates==
===Creationism/Intelligent Design===
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

===Evolution===
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate: What does Evolution attempt to explain?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
===Global Warming===
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
===Wikis===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
===Positions===
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
===Characteristics===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
===Blocking Policy===
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia change it's logo?]]

==Media==
===Media Bias===
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
===Decency Standards===
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Is Anime and Manga Ok?]]
===Music===
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]

==Funny, maybe?==
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Socialism

2013-10-03T18:37:01Z

Dsherman:

'''Socialism''' has its roots in visions of imaginary ideal societies, from thinkers who drew up elaborated designs and concepts for creating what they considered a more equal society, along collectivist lines or abolished private property; the primarily ideas came from British and French thinkers like [[Saint-Simon]], [[Charles Fourier]], [[Louis Blanc]], and [[Robert Owen]] preceded by [[Thomas More]], [[Tommaso Campanella]], and [[Jean Meslier]]. One of [[Karl Marx]]'s titles was the father of socialism. Currently it is considered a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system which advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century that was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi), headed by the [[fascist]], but anti-communist<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/adolf_hitler.htm</ref> [[Adolf Hitler]]. Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe]]an countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties and default due to over taxation and excessive spending).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref>
__TOC__
[[Image:Ur8756.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ludwig von Mises]] ]]
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.}}

Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|[[Shepard Fairey]], designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]

In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.

If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}

[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref>
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref>
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===

[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref name="misesblog">http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref name="misesblog" />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”

Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}

== Influence of Russia on socialism ==
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref>

In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class.

The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

==Contradictory Goals of Socialism==

Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.

Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref>
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.

But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.

The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power.
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!

==Types of Socialism==

There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.

===Leninism===
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]

Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.

Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).

==="Democratic" Socialism===
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref>

===Communal Socialism===
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

=== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ===

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Controversy==
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''

The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

[[Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the Western World throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.

===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismarck]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism.

During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.

See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

====New Testament socialism====
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref>

However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9)
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}

While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19)

Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff)

While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref>

In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed.

As one critic of modern-day socialism states:
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote>

== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.

In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
<blockquote>
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref>
</blockquote>

A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.

Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref name="npr">[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref name="npr" />

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==

===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be communist since then, nationalizing millions of dollars worth of American-owned property. It is notable that Fidel Castro originally self-defined as [[liberal]], before coming out openly as a communist.<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fib-global-history-ii-period-5.aspen.high.schoolfusion.us%2Fmodules%2Flocker%2Ffiles%2Fget_group_file.phtml%3Ffid%3D6868636%26gid%3D1176955%26sessionid%3D0&ei=o74IUPDNOqPp6wGbtPGxCg&usg=AFQjCNG1bEoHrxurCF_WL1OPKMxIb4hCTw Fidel Castro - His Rise and Rule of Cuba]</ref> Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their fundamental rights. (Fidel's brother [[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

[[North Korea]]'s form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by [[Kim Il Sung]] and carried on by his son [[Kim Jong Il]] and after his death by the current leader [[Kim Jong-un]]. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref> After the death of Chavez, [[Nicolás Maduro]] continues his politics.

===Other Countires===
[[Daniel Ortega]], the dictator of [[Nicaragua]], is a strong ally of Venezuela and Cuba. [[China]] and [[Vietnam]] have abolished the Socialist economy but are still governed by Communist parties. Other countries who are controlled by Socialist parties are [[Laos]], [[Angola]], [[Mozambique]] and [[Moldova]].

==Quotes==
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-- [[Winston Churchill]]

"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"

-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]

"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"

-- L. Neil Smith

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]

"All socialism involves slavery"

-- [[Herbert Spencer]]

== See also ==
*[[List of Socialist States]]
*[[Nazism and socialism]]
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills‎]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Socialism

2013-09-27T00:45:31Z

Dsherman: It's not encyclopedic to include such a fringe element, it's akin to showing Ted Haggart as an example of a Christian preacher, or to show Ted Bundy as an example of a Republican

'''Socialism''' has its roots in visions of imaginary ideal societies, from thinkers who drew up elaborated designs and concepts for creating what they considered a more equal society, along collectivist lines or abolished private property; the primarily ideas came from British and French thinkers like [[Saint-Simon]], [[Charles Fourier]], [[Louis Blanc]], and [[Robert Owen]] preceded by [[Thomas More]], [[Tommaso Campanella]], and [[Jean Meslier]]. One of [[Karl Marx]]'s titles was the father of socialism. Currently it is considered a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system which advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century that was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi), headed by the [[fascist]], [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref name="mises" /><ref name="darNaz" /><ref name="hott" /> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe]]an countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties and default due to over taxation and excessive spending).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref>
__TOC__
[[Image:Ur8756.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ludwig von Mises]] ]]
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref name="mises" />}}

Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|[[Shepard Fairey]], designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]

In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.

If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}

[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref>
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref>
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===

[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref name="misesblog">http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref name="misesblog" />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”

Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}

== Influence of Russia on socialism ==
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref>

In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class.

The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

==Contradictory Goals of Socialism==

Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.

Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref>
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.

But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.

The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power.
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!

==Types of Socialism==

There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.

===Leninism===
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]

Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.

Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).

==="Democratic" Socialism===
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref>

===Communal Socialism===
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

=== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ===

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Controversy==
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''

The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

[[Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the Western World throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.

===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismarck]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism.

During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.

See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

====New Testament socialism====
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref>

However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9)
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}

While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19)

Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff)

While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref>

In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed.

As one critic of modern-day socialism states:
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote>

== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.

In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
<blockquote>
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref>
</blockquote>

A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.

Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref name="npr">[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref name="npr" />

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==

===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be communist since then, nationalizing millions of dollars worth of American-owned property. It is notable that Fidel Castro originally self-defined as [[liberal]], before coming out openly as a communist.<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fib-global-history-ii-period-5.aspen.high.schoolfusion.us%2Fmodules%2Flocker%2Ffiles%2Fget_group_file.phtml%3Ffid%3D6868636%26gid%3D1176955%26sessionid%3D0&ei=o74IUPDNOqPp6wGbtPGxCg&usg=AFQjCNG1bEoHrxurCF_WL1OPKMxIb4hCTw Fidel Castro - His Rise and Rule of Cuba]</ref> Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their fundamental rights. (Fidel's brother [[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

[[North Korea]]'s form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by [[Kim Il Sung]] and carried on by his son [[Kim Jong Il]] and after his death by the current leader [[Kim Jong-un]]. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref> After the death of Chavez, [[Nicolás Maduro]] continues his politics.

==Quotes==
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-- [[Winston Churchill]]

"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"

-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]

"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"

-- L. Neil Smith

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]

"All socialism involves slavery"

-- [[Herbert Spencer]]

== See also ==
*[[List of Socialist States]]
*[[Nazism and socialism]]
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills‎]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

{{Liberalism}}

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

[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Religion and U.S. Government

2013-09-24T18:47:05Z

Dsherman: /* American Revolution */

The role of '''Religion and U.S. Government''' has been a central Constitutional issue since the [[American Revolution]].
==American Revolution==
One of the causes of the revolution was fear that the British government was about to impose on the American colonies a bishop from the Anglican [[Church of England]].

The [[Declaration of Independence]] acknowledges the existence of God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." That statement was inserted by the author, [[Thomas Jefferson]], a Deist. Most Americans were Protestants; the Anglican Church of England, which had been the established church in several colonies, was disestablished. That is, it was no longer supported by taxes. Massachusetts and Connecticut later dropped their taxpayer support of the Congregational Church, and the principle of legal separation of church and state became established.

==Bill of Rights==
[[James Madison]] in 1791 wrote the [[First Amendment]] to the U.S. Constitution, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first clause is referred to as the [[Establishment Clause]], and the second the [[Free Exercise Clause]]. An informal letter that President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, called the First Amendment as "a wall of separation between Church and State."<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists], January 1, 1802. Retrieved November 11, 2008.</ref>
==Supreme Court==
In recent decades, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has used the "[[Lemon test]]" as a means for determining whether or not a particular controversy causes excessive entanglement between government and religion, though in some cases has allowed religious icons (such as the Ten Commandments display in [[Texas]].<ref> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500 </ref>)
==Federal aid to education==
Statements of religious leaders in denominational journals and before congressional committees show that during the 1930s Catholics abandoned their objections to federal aid to education in favor of qualified support, provided children in parochial schools were to benefit from it. However Protestants reacted to giving federal aid to private schools by protesting a breach in the wall of separation between church and state. They also characterized such aid as a step towards totalitarianism, bureaucratic centralization, federal paternalism, and collectivism. The result was no federal aid to public education was possible before 1965, and still no federal aid to religious schools. <ref> Ambrose A., Clegg, Jr. "Church Groups and Federal Aid to Education, 1933-1939" ''History of Education Quarterly'' 1964 4(3): 137-154. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/367369 in JSTOR] </ref>

==Public Opinion==
Americans see their country as a predominantly Christian nation. A Pew Report showed 76% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats,and 67% of independents view the U.S. a Christian nation. [[Humanism#Secular_Humanism|Secular]] categories are the only subgroup in which fewer than a majority sees the U.S. as a Christian country. Although the public clearly sees a strong link between Christianity and the country's national identity, most Americans think citizen preferences should outweigh the Bible as an influence on American law. When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible most Americans (63%) say the people's will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important.<ref>[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153#1 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life], August 24, 2006. Retrieved June 7, 2007.</ref>

==Further reading==
* Goldberg, George. ''Church, State and the Constitution.'' (1987), conservative attack on Supreme Court decisions; argues in favor of prayer in the public schools
* Hammond, Phillip E. "American Church/State Jurisprudence from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court," ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,'' Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 455-464 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388099 in JSTOR]
* Healey, Robert M. "Thomas Jefferson's 'Wall': Absolute or Serpentine?" ''Journal of Church and State'' 1988 30(3): 441-462, history of usage by Supreme Court
* Ivers, Gregg. ''To Build a Wall: American Jews and the Separation of Church and State.'' (1995). 272 pp. shows strong Jewish support for a high wall
* Kleeberg Irene Cumming. ''Separation of Church and State'' (1986), introduction at high school level.
* Levy Leonard W. ''The Establishment Clause.'' (1986) by leading historian
* McWhirter, Darien A. ''The Separation of Church and State'' (1994) 189pp; summary of the issues [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-separation-of-church-and-state-by-darien-a-mcwhirter.jsp online edition]
* Reichley A. James. ''Religion in American Public Life.'' (1985), history of the relationship between religion and politics
* Segers, Mary C. and Jelen, Ted G. eds. ''A Wall of Separation?: Debating the Public Role of Religion.'' (1998). 191 pp.
* Stokes Anson Phelps, and Pfeffer Leo. ''Church and State in the United States.''(1964), famous classic.
* [http://www.questia.com/library/separation-of-church-and-state.jsp online books on Separation]

==see also==
* [[Separation of church and state]]
* [[Establishment clause]]
* [[First Amendment]]
* [[Free Exercise clause]]
* [[Lemon test]]
* [[Lemon v. Kurtzman]]
* [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]]

====references====
<references/>

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]

Agnosticism

2013-09-19T17:56:54Z

Dsherman:

[[Image:65375.jpg|thumb|David Hume]]
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of a god or gods, and in stronger forms, the assertion that the existence of a deity or deities knowable.

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore they are not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''.

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of [[Darwinism]].</ref> from the [[Greek language|Greek]] roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref> ]

Some accuse agnostics of being cowardly atheists, due to their supposedly wishy-washy rejection of God. It is also said by particular Christian groups, particularly but not exclusively in the United States of America, that those who know of [[Jesus]] but do not accept him are just as damned as those who reject him explicitly.

==Atheism and agnosticism==

Agnostics differ from [[Atheism|atheists]] in that they do not deny the existence of a deity while not affirming the existence of one.

Further division lies with in two kinds of agnosticism: Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism. Agnostic Theists believe in a god but do not claim to know there is a god. Agnostic Atheists do not believe in a god but do not claim to know there is not a god. Thus the distinction between Agnostics as opposed to Theists or Atheists is they do not claim knowledge even if they claim a belief. So contrary to what some may believe, they are not opinion-less on the subject.

Many religious [[believer]]s make no distinction among [[non-believer]]s. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is any [[faithless]] person who doesn't [[believe]] in God.

Among those who have not decided whether to believe in a god, or to disbelieve in the existance of one, there are two main groups:
#Those who simply haven't made a decision
#Those who declare no rational decision is possible, on the grounds that the existence of a god is not knowable.

[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a [[philosopher]], if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the [[Greek mythology|Homeric gods]].<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

== Norman Geisler on Complete Agnosticism ==

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete agnosticism:
{{cquote|Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20).<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref>}}

== Lack of sound leadership within their community ==

Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/[[Atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist communities in dealing with the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism and agnosticism]].

See:

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]

==Frequency==
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]
Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the [[United States]], 32% of people in [[France]] and 35% of people in [[Great Britain]] self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref>

==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness==
[[Per capita]] atheists and agnostics in the [[United States]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists]].
== Famous Agnostics ==

*[[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]])
*[[Bill Maher]]
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Albert Einstein]] (assumed)<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html</ref>
*[[Steve Wozniak]]

== Agnostic population and health habits ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Agnosticism, obesity and self-esteem]]

[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|180px|right|thumbnail|Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> Thus, it appears as if agnostics/non-religious are more prone to becoming [[obese]] than very religious individuals.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
According to the [[Gallup Organization]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>

Gallup further declares:
{{cquote|Very religious [[American]]s make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including [[smoking]], [[healthy eating]], and regular exercise. Smoking is one area of particular differentiation between the very religious and less religious Americans, with the nonreligious 85% more likely to be smokers than those who are very religious.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>}}

Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity, thus it appears as if agnostics/non-religious may be more prone to becoming [[obese]] than very religious individuals.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref>

== Comparing Agnosticism, Atheism, and Theism from an Acultural Standpoint ==
In the absence of any cultural, metaphysical, and scientific history, as passed from one individual to another, the default position is a 'seeking theism'. Atheism and agnosticism are, at best, merely self-preserving coping responses to others' personally existentially unsatisfactory claims to having 'found God'. In their strongest forms, atheism and agnosticism are, for the individual, comparable respectively to what communist dictatorship and regressive anarchy are for the society: the presence of ontological disharmonies between individuals motivating, for lack of a complete basic knowledge of the world, an ''oppressive'' civil structure and a randomly destructive ''lack'' of civil structure.

== See also ==
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheist factions]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Apatheism]]

== External Links ==
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

==References==

<References/>

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

Talk:Abortion

2013-09-19T17:18:24Z

Dsherman:

==The Language==
We should remove the references to it being "murder." I would have done it myself but the article is locked. Murder is a legal term referring to unlawful killing not just killing. Abortion is legal in the United States (this is an american-based wikia so what other countries say of abortion is of no consequence) It would not be inconsistent to do so since Mr. Ashlafly has proposed in his re-translation of The Bible to change the commonly accepted translation "thou shall not kill" to "thou shall not murder" thus establishing a precedent for such a change. Murder can be of course be used within persuasive essays to refer to legal honor killings in the middle east of course, but this is an encyclopedia, not a persuasive essay. It's not about watering it down, it's about making this place more encyclopedia-like. For the record, I'm anti-abortion (I refuse the pro-life label) albeit for secular not religious reasons.--DavidS 13:18, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

== Suggest Revert ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph on Abortion and Breast Cancer reads "Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades." which is evidenced by an article on the tobacco industry and its denials rather than anything related to abortion - not very poignant. Removed it, but apparently this should be there? Don't think that kind of boot-strapping sets a good example for the home-school kids.
Added a list of the liberal organizations who deny the link between breast cancer and abortion - saying "many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection." at the end of the abortion section is vacuous - people should know who these people are denying such strong evidence. Added a list of organizations and citations to their denials but apparently these details aren't appropriate? Don't think [[George Washington]] would have removed demonstrable facts when we could "seek the truth and pursue it steadily"
Respectfully suggest reverting to previous version rather than censoring demonstrably valid edits
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 01:39, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Pro-Abortion Distortion ... Rebutted ==
I wanted to know the process of abortion, not the pro-life opinion on abortion. I am pro-life, but this page does not describe the actual abortion itself.

As provided by the national cancer institute (the real one, not the name-hijacking national cancer institution of abortion) there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage]</ref> The positive cancer preventing attributes of birth are distinct from the causality of cancer by abortion. The studies indicate that women who have abortions and women who do not give birth are at equal risk of breast cancer.

: Your comment is misleading. Read the entry with an open mind. The evidence is overwhelming that abortion increases the pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer.

: There's over a billion dollars and other incentives to deceive the public into accepting abortion. Don't be taken in by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

"About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort." Why is this sentence in bold? It might be an important piece of evidence, but the statistics are not 100% perfect, nor is there an obvious conclusion to draw from it. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Also, why is there a picture of an ultrasound which supposedly pictures Jesus? What does that have to do with abortion? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
: From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 03:50, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

== Rename Article? ==
I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that.

==Typo(s)===
<blockquote>
At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.
</blockquote> [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 18:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs."

Conservapedia's article is like the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are bad. Stay away.''

Wikipedia's article is the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).''

Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==
'''

I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion. I think it is necessary to include a mention early on in the article to how the medical definition of abortion varies from the popular definition. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ardent liberals don't think anything should be a litmus test for conservatism or for Christianity for that matter. Liberals, are not exactly champions for restraint of any kind. Obama's massive spending is a fine example of this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:29, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

Northern Ireland: Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland (not as the article states 'legal but rare'). In common with other countries where abortion is illegal, allowances have been made where carrying the child to term would put the mother at too great a risk, and therefore an abortion may be performed. Women from Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, often find themselves in a situation where they 'get on the boat' and travel to England for an abortion instead.

:That's largely true. There are exceptions where abortions can be performed in Northern Ireland, basically for health reasons [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm]. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: "Health" exceptions are notoriously broad in some countries, and can even include "financial health." It is in the interests of the abortion industry to exaggerate its complaints about limitations on abortion in its desire to expand its business.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

* Support. I am also a Christian, and while I might agree with some of the views expressed in this article I recognise my opinions as one side of an argument. When an article is as biased as this is present it detracts from the factual nature. I propose this article is restructured to include more factual material, and what exists at present condensed into a section titled "moral issues with abortion".

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

By the same logic you have used in this article about breast cancer; abstinence is as bad as an abortion. Both increase (to the same amount) the risk of breast cancer, as you are not having a baby (which you state decreases the risk of breast cancer). So the very thing you are suggesting people to do (abstinence), is something that increases breast cancer (your argument, as they wont have a baby) which is the reason you are telling people not to have an abortion. Surely, surely a contradiction here. Unless we can find a solution to the contradiction, this section on breast cancer needs to be removed.

: No, your logic is fallacious. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer more than not having children. Also, abstinence reduces the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (outside of marriage) reduces the risk of health problems, including breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.obgyn.net/displayarticle.asp?page=/english/pubs/articles/nuns] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/bcancer1.html] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.popline.org/docs/0078/690575.html] is a study itself that reads "Nuns displayed a striking excess in breast cancer mortality over the age span of 40-74 years and had consistently higher rates than controls for each age group above 39 years." Do you have any links to a study that shows a decreased risk for breast cancer for nuns (who I assume practice abstinence). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:57, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Nuns predictably would have an elevated risk of breast cancer. One who has an [[abortion]] is incurring that risk '''plus''' an increased risk arising from the interruption of a pregnancy. Note that pro-[[abortion]] advocates deny any increased risk of breast cancer from an [[abortion]], which makes no sense in light of what you just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: Multiple the number of abortions worldwide by the charges for those abortions. It's way over a billion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

What about the abortion of a foetus that has been exposed to depleted uranium? Like the ones being born to mothers in Iraq? Should they be allowed to get an abortion rather than having a baby that will live its short life in pain and suffering? - http://www.aztlan.net/du_deformed_iraqi_babies.htm

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:::"Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream!" -- Well, isn't it? The words have nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a term about popularity. Support for abortion is mainstream, as google defines it: ''The prevailing current of thought influence or activity supported by dominant cultures and institutions.'' [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 13:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, it's not mainstream, except by those who benefit from the [[abortion industry]] or are fooled by it. President [[George W. Bush]] was elected and re-elected by opposing [[abortion]], as does [[John McCain]].

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

The Hippocratic Oath forbids any kind of surgery in general, I feel that its use to decry abortion as a medically unacceptable procedure is outdated and inappropriate here.
[[User:Yatesan|Yatesan]] 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)

==Image==

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008

:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Picture? ==

I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008

: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Abortion and Suicide ==

Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Your see also list has [[Abortion Facts]] on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 14:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Fetus wrong ==

The human fetus is inaccurate. abortions are ALMOST NEVER done anywhere near this point. Always stops the "beating heart" is also inaccurate because the heart has not developed. Use of this image is an example of bleeding-heart pandering.

: Please try again in a more coherent manner. Are you referring to the picture? Many, many [[abortions]] are done at that stage, and later. And doing an [[abortion]] earlier is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pictures Generated ==

Is the first picture computer generated? It looks so realistic that its unrealistic.

: No, it's implausible to think a computer generated that photo. Many similar, actual photos are widely available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Ultimate Goal is Reducing Abortion, yes? ==

I think that this page should have a very stong message of how to reduce the number of abortions. I think that everyone, including the most rabid pro-lifers would have to agree that in an ideal society abortion would not exist. A quick investigation into which countries have extremely low abortion rates would be a starting point for what works. For example, Sweden, often quoted as the ideal liberal society with freely available sexual education and contraception for youth has an unacceptably high abortion rate. About the same as the U.S. But Holland and Belgium, both very secular societies with similar attitudes towards sexual education and contraception have abortion rates about half of the U.S. It appears that outlawing abortion has a dramatic effect on the number of abortions performed but there are also countries like Austria with liberal abortion laws that have extremely low abortion rates.

'''This wall chart shows worldwide abortion statistics and would be useful for anyone researching abortion, as I hope that many people use this site for.'''

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf

It is interesting to see how Canada's abortion rate is 25% less than the U.S. rate. They are relatively similar societies, with Canada being viewed as being more liberal, with more liberal abortion laws.

As well, to present both sides of the story, it should be noted that some researchers contend that outlawing abortion just pushes it underground. In a surprisingly balanced article for the liberal press, here is an article that presents both sides of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Aside from working to outlaw abortion, I think that truly Christian, Conservative activists should research what programs are effective in reducing abortion rates. Abstinence seems not to work, and if contraception is the answer, I think that the small sin of premarital sex with protection far outweighs the big sin of murdering a child.

What do the site adminsitrators and readers think? Is this part of a balanced discussion of abortion.

Jeremyh

: I found the UN table to be liberal claptrap, spreading more misinformation than anything else. The table does confirm that Poland and Ireland, where abortion is illegal, have almost no abortions. Well, no kidding. As to other countries, the table does not differentiate between the various types of abortion regulations that have a big effect on numbers of abortion, such as informed consent, parental consent, bans on abortions after a certain number of weeks, etc. Are Austria's abortion laws really as liberal as the table claims? I doubt they are nearly as liberal as the United States. Also, note that demographics are vastly different between countries like the United States and Canada, and abortion rates vary widely based on demographics with all else the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the UN is probably not the best source for non-liberal information. I have found a better site that breaks down the laws somewhat better, but still is missing the consent aspect. (It appears to be a pro-life site)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

As well it would be foolish and naive to assume that there are no abortions performed in Poland or Ireland. The figures that any goverment agency will give you are offical statistics. Any investigation into the exact number of illegal abortions performed in these countries are bound to be tainted with researcher prejudice. I don't know these figures, and I doubt that anyone really knows with any accuracy. Some liberal researchers put the figures questionably high in order to support their cause of keeping abortion legal. The fact is that abortion laws do not affect these illegal abortions.

I don't want to harp on Austria, but it just seemed so weird that I did a little research. Apparently they have extremely liberal abortion laws and even have legalized the 'abortion pill'. What the heck is going on there? Should we ignore countries like Austria and Belgium? Or should we see if they are doing something right to stop the indiscriminate murder of babies?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2970/2001/00000001/00000001/art00002

I do not claim to know the answer, but it seems that a wider approach is needed to stop abortion in conjunction to working towards banning it. It may sound facetious, but we have had a 100% strictly enforced ban on murder (of adults)in this country for over 200 years and it has not stopped people from murdering each other. Of course we should ban abortion, but what else is in our arsenal to stop this evil? And what the heck are we doing wrong in the U.S. that our abortion rates higher than most Western European nations, and are only outstripped by former Communist countries where the culture was to use abortion as birth control?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

== Morality of Abortion ==

It seems so far that the morality of abortion hinges on the question of whether or not it involves termination of human life. Let me then pose this question: In medical research laboratories, colonies of human cells of various types are often grown in petri dishes in order to study medications and diseases at a cellular level. These cells metabolize (they are in fact alive) and are, genetically speaking, definitely human. If abortion is morally wrong because it involves the termination of human life, is the fixing and staining of human cell cultures morally wrong?
[[User:Cwb|Cwb]]

: Cells are not necessarily human lives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: The question then becomes what is human life, and what is not? You state that cells are not always human life. But a human embryo is little more than a bundle of cells. What exactly makes an embryo a human life and human cell cultures not human life? [[User:Cwb|Cwb]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::: A random bunch of cells can't become a human, but a embryo can. That's the difference. [[User:Patriot1505]]

:::: Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, '''from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle'''.”

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 664: ”'''A new individual''' is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

''The Gale Encyclopedia of Science'' 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, '''the developing human being''' is called an embryo.”

''The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science'' 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple '''life cycle''' consisting of '''fertilization''' of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. '''The developing individual''' between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), '''a new life has begun'''.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), '''a new life begins'''.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 121: ”'''The new individual is established at the time of fertilization''', and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, '''is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment'''.”

Human embryologist say:

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)

William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”'''Human development''' is a '''continuous process''' that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is '''fertilized''' by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)

Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book ''Developmental Biology'':

”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. '''But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm.''' It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)

Besides, as we all consist of different tissues, every human being is just a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual.

--[[User:JohanSB|JohanSB]] 09:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

== The Bible and Abortion ==

I am surprised to see that there is no mention of the Bible's explicit condemnation of abortion in this article. I will write up a section on this if a sysop is willing to unlock it later. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe the relationship between the Bible and abortion is a complicated topic worthy of discussion; I have heard Christian pro-choice advocates quote Exodus 21:22-25, wherein God apparently deems men who kill an unborn child to be not guilty of murder. I, too, would be willing to contribute if a sysop unlocks the article, and will do my best to treat this subject with fairness. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: Just start a new entry, like the [[Abortion and the Bible]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 01:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)

== One-sided graphic display ==

The image at the top of the article is not representative of most aborted fetuses; it almost looks like a baby for crying out loud. An image like Fetus1.jpg would be more appropriate.

== What about women. ==

This Article says nothing about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own own body.
[[User:Hwuya|Hwuya]] 18:11, 24 November 2008 (EDT)
: one could argue that she makes a choice when she elects to become pregnant. I concede that special situation for rape may apply. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Abortion is murder ==

I was stunned to see that the word "murder" does not appear anywhere in the article. Is Conservapedia trying to placate liberals, or pander to liberal viewpoints? This is a simple matter of clear and logical thinking: murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Unborn children are innocent people: therefore, abortion is murder.

I am new here, and I humbly apologize if I am out of my depth, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe we should shy away from boldly stating the truth, even if the liberal media does. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but pro-life leader [[Henry Hyde]] didn't use the word "murder" either. That term entails a legal or moral judgment and this entry has more of a scientific nature, like the rest of this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. It's your decision, of course. I just believe it is the duty of Christians to judge immorality, where the Bible or even common sense dictates. We don't pretend that [[gay rights]] or [[liberal values]] are morally sound on those pages, and evading the issue here leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

:: I am happy to trust your judgment on this issue, though. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::I applaud both your sentiment and your decision. After all, it is discipline as well as truthfulness that distinguishes us from WP. [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 09:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

I would like to point out that abortion is not something done purely for profit, nor do those who run clinics do it for the purposes of earning a lot of money. I think this part of the article os erroneous.

: Wow, you've really been taken in by the abortion propaganda. Check how much the leading advocates of abortion make in one year. You'd be lucky to make the same amount in ten years of hard work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== The fetus in the picture... ==

Does anyone have any idea how old s/he is? I think it would benefit to say "A human fetus at ___ weeks old." [[User:Shatoyaah|Shatoyaah]] 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::It is approximately 3-4 months old.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

== How about high quality video? ==

How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:Sure. Next time I get a chance. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:39, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Planned parenthood's racism ==

Should we include the incident where palnned parenthood called wanting less black people in the world "understandable"? And wasn't their founder also a racist?
:That information is in the [[Planned Parenthood]] article, actually. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

== Picture of the Smellie Forcep ==

Maybe it should be mentioned that it's not solely an "abortion tool" - it is used in regular childbirth as well. Rebranding it as an "abortion tool" is like naming a gun an "armed robbery tool". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 16:18, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

:The caption does not say or imply that it is solely an abortion tool. Also, while guns are overwhelmingly defensive in purpose, by a ratio of more than 100:1, I don't think the same can be said about the Smellie Forcep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

== unlock? ==

Can someone unlock or edit in for me under See Also this - [[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]? Thank you[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 20:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:Done as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Russia ==

In Russia abortion is allowed at any point during pregnancy. This is litteraly at ANY point until the umbilical cord is cutted. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#Current_law</ref>

== Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! ==

Starting this week, [[User:Conservative|Admin Conservative]] will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:01, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:Admin:Conservative, trying to delete this section only drew my attention to it. So, what's about the dogs? Did you let them out? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

==Definition of Abortion==

This article begins with a false statement: "Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy, often causing fetal pain."

:Actually ,a medically accurate definition is "an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of the unborn baby and associated tissue from the uterus." To be sure abortion is commonly as the article defines it. But many abortions are spontaneous; probably most married women have them.

:::IMO focusing on "abortion," leads to distortion of the moral reality, which is baby-murder.

Suggested revision:

::"Medically speaking, an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of an unborn baby and associated tissue from his mother's uterus.<ref>medical dictionary citations go here</ref>. However, in common usage, the term abortion is used to denote the induced killing of the unborn baby, often causing pain to the unborn baby. (See article on Baby Murder.) ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 16:02, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Change Title of Article to Baby-Murder==

Suggestion: Reduce the "Abortion" article to a sentence or two and put a link: "See Baby-Murder." "Baby-Murder" should be the title for most of this topic. Talking about "abortion" obscures the issue. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:20, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

:Technically speaking you are correct, but that's why no one wants technocrats running anything. ;-)
:99% of the public isn't going to search for Baby Murder, even if pro-life. They will search abortion, and that is why the article is called Abortion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:42, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganization ==

Can I reorganize the article, shifting some of it to specific sub-topic pages to make the main page less bulky?[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 20:34, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:I don't see a problem in doing that. You can also transclude parts onto a template and load it back onto the page that way, thus relieving some of the bulk as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:00, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

I have concerns about the changes already made, which give priority to a speculative poll while downgrading the fact that nearly 80% of women who see the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against abortion.

Like newspaper articles and good websites, ''Conservapedia'' entries prioritize the presentation of information based on significance. In this example, the fact about ultrasounds should carry more weight and receive higher priority than Guttmacher's speculative poll.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:I made the edits reflecting the higher priority that should be given to facts (the percentage of women decide against abortion due to ultrasounds) relative to speculative polling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

::And I put it back. How the heck can we fight abortion if we don't even address why the women are sitting in the abortion clinic in the first place?

How much more significant can something be than WHY PEOPLE DO IT?

I've been a professional research writer on abortion. And I don't appreciate having extensively researched and relevant information simply yanked out because somebody else wants ONE SENTENCE to say everything that he thinks needs to be said on the topic.[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 21:59, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

: I'm happy to discuss Guttmacher's polling approach and learn more about it. But in general polling data are often unreliable and are easily skewed. Polling data are not facts, like the ultrasound data are. An analogy would be to give polling data priority over actual election results.

: Did the Guttmacher poll provide the "reasons" to the women being surveyed, and ask them to choose between Guttmacher's options?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:: The poll failed to mention the issue of seeing an ultrasound. The real reason that nearly 80% of women have abortions is simply this: they never saw an ultrasound of the unborn child. If a poll doesn't ask the right question, then it isn't going to get the correct answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

As a new user, I don't feel inclined to edit this article, but it feels very heavy on the front, with the table of content coming after a significant portion of the article. The issue is very crucial and atrocious, but our presentation should be more encyclopedic, with a short introduction, then a table of content, with so many sections before the content, it seems to violate the style guides I've been reading. You have to scroll to the contents, unless you've got an enormous monitor.--[[UserJohannesW|JohannesW]] 23:45, 22 September 2011 (EDT).

== Disappearance of [[abortion]] in [[Poland]] ==

Why I wrote that the reason abortion fell in Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union is due to abortion being illegal: Abortion is illegal in Poland. That is a fact, not an opinion. For reference, here are some links explaining this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691192.stm, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12222281. I'm a conservative myself, and oppose abortion, but I do not think that it is fair that the purported reason for abortion dropping so drastically after the Soviet Union fell is because abortion is a communist undertaking, as is suggested.

: Abortion is highly correlated with communism, and communist attitudes. Abortion in the communist Soviet Union occurred at a rate many times that of the West, I think. So I'm not prepared to deny the connection. Conversely, abortion occurs at higher rates than in Poland in other nations where it is illegal, such as South America.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)

: A close reading of both of your links tends to reinforce my point. The first link (the BBC) notes that the Polish people associate the practice of abortion with the disliked and discredited communist Soviet Union. The second link (the NIH article) notes that the cost of abortion in Poland is a big factor. Government subsidies of abortion may matter more than the law, and presumably the communist government subsidized abortion heavily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 30 December 2010 (EST)

A major reason that abortion occurred at a higher rate is because there were much more people in the Soviet Union than in any Western country. I do not see how you can not see the connection between abortion becoming illegal and a sharp drop in its rate. I am entirely sure that abortion would not have dropped 99% had it not been declared illegal. Also, regarding Polish people associating the practice of abortion with the Soviet Union: of course they are going to associate it with the Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union, abortion was legal, now it is not. After the American Revolution, people associated monarchy with England, because England was a monarchy, and they were then under a so-called republic. Also, the Soviet Union did not subsidize abortion. In fact, they subsidized families who had children, so there was an incentive to have a child, not destroy one.

: The connection between communism and high abortion rates can hardly be denied, historically, logically, and spiritually. The average married woman in the communist Soviet Union had numerous abortions. Communism legalized abortion in 1920, and presumably it was long subsidized there as phony "health care." Logically, treating everyone the same under communism means many abortions so that women can work just like men.

: Pro-abortion groups pretend that women in Poland want to have abortion but cannot because it is illegal. The truth is that the people of Poland genuinely do not want to have abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 30 December 2010 (EST)

The average Russian woman did not have multiple abortions. In 1964, the year when there the most abortions in Soviet history, there were 5.6 million abortions. I could not find statistics depicting the number of women in Russia during 1964, but this year, there are about 66 million Russian women above the age of 15. I find it extremely hard to believe that the amount of women in Russia multiplied by 23.6 in 46 years. Also, with all due respect, how can you know that Polish women do not want to have abortions?

: 66 million Russian woman over age 15 means only about 10 million or so between ages 17 and 27, when women are most likely to become pregnant. At 5.6 million abortions a year, that means 30% or so of women in that age group were having an abortion ''each year''. That's many abortions per average woman by the time she is 30.

: You've fallen for the liberal misinformation, and have much to learn. We all do. I urge you to open your mind and learn and contribute here. The statement that Polish women no longer have abortions because they are not allowed to is a biased conclusion from the data. There are many other, equally plausible explanations, such as (a) they don't want to have abortions and/or (b) abortions are no longer subsidized by government. Do you think the main reason that people don't swim in a ice cold, dirty lake in a public park is because it is illegal?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 30 December 2010 (EST)

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

Don't the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, and Royal Cancer society all reject a link between breast cancer and abortion? [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 21:20, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:There's no point arguing this anymore. This horse has been beaten to death, resuscitated, beaten back to death, and given a final good beating before being sent off to create glue. Improve Conservapedia in other ways, and maybe once you've proven yourself to the establishment you can bring this point up again.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:40, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::I have to prove myself in order to point out that some the leading researchers in the fields of cancer and human anatomy have tested data and drawn conclusions contrary to the one mentioned in the article? I don't know the arguments presented, it just seemed rather strange that the organizations created solely to look for links like this are apparently all lying for some unknown reason. [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 01:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

== Abortions and Gays ==

If the fetus you save is gay, would you still fight for it's rights, if you fought for it's right to live and make it's own choice regarding it's life?

== Abortions and Gays ==

If the fetus you save is gay, would you still fight for it's rights, if you fought for it's right to live and make it's own choice regarding it's life?

== Deletions ==

I just added some sections on History and Public Polling. I'm deleting the following sections:{{cquote|
== Atheists and abortion ==
The [[Barna Group]] found concering [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of [[atheism]] or [[agnosticism]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref>

==American Liberals and Abortion==
According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-abortion views. <ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref>

==Evolutionary Thought and Abortion==
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives]]. [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of aborting babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>http://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>}}

I hope nobody really minds the removal of these, but they really don't contribute to the page from what I can tell. Doesn't it kind of go without saying that Atheists, Liberals, and Evolutionists are more likely to support abortion? You'd think everybody would pretty much know this. Having a bunch of little sections on these, frankly pretty obvious points, just makes the page look messier and more disorganized than it should. A section that I think would be much more useful and might end up writing, on the other hand, would be confronting common Abortion talking points about "choice", "right to one's body", and "privacy". But all these sections really do is distract rather than saying anything particularly useful. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 00:51, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

I also just deleted this section:
{{cquote|
== Scientists on abortion ==
Professor Vladimir Krčméry, Rector of the University of St.Elizabeth and the holder of two honorary doctorates made following public claim regarding abostion:
{{cquote|I consider abortion for being a deliberate killing of an unborn child who cannot defend itself, and therefore it is medically and ethically unjustifiable and absurd. My opinion is not based on any religious reasons, but on the civil and scientific ones. It is the opinion of a member of the Royal College of physicians, a member of the American College of physicians and a candidate for the Nobel Prize.<ref>{{cite web
|author=Vladimír Krčméry
|title=Stanovisko-Krcmery (public claim by Krcmery)
|publisher=CBR Europe
|location=Slovakia
|url=http://web.pravonazivot.sk/stanovisko-krcmery/
|language=Slovak
|access date=06.05.2012
|quote=}}</ref>}}}}

I checked the source provided and it's not in English. I Googled it and just get foreign language results. Maybe he really did say that but it's also possible someone could've added a pro-abortion quote as a joke. I just don't know. But I don't think a section for a single quote like this is really worthwhile anyway, especially way at the bottom of the page. It would need more quotes to make it worthwhile, and I think it's better to incorporate good quotes into the page itself when possible anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:37, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Because the quote is an obvious translation, it's somewhat poorer quality too, at least for an English wiki page. And having a whole subsection just for it is kind of a waste, especially when most English speaking people can't even verify that he actually said that. I really dislike that and think removing it cleans up the page a bit for better appearance, and shortens the TOC. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:39, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

==TOC Location==
I'd like to suggest moving that Table of Contents up on the page. It really doesn't look very good all the way down there. Won't it go below the Lede anyway? And isn't the Lede where all the "insights" and vital statistics to be shown on the 1st page are anyway? The Lede takes up pretty much the whole 1st page anyway. If more needs to be shown, why not just add a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TOC_right&action=edit template for TOC right like Wikipedia has], to show the TOC on the right so more text can fit beside it? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:07, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Let me know what everyone thinks about the recategorization. I moved up some new sections I wrote on Reasons on Abortion and When Does Life Begin that really debunk common arguments on abortion and show beyond all shadow of a doubt that abortion is occurring as murder. I changed four subsections on health risks into a single section with subsections, Health Concerns.

A big change was the TOC right template. This lets the TOC float right and have content beside it, REALLY improving the page's performance. I also thought it looked good to have statistics near the top giving basic info for people, and moved that one up. A chart there displaying this visually, like the Reasons for Abortion section has, would really be a good improvement I think.

Anyway, let me know what everyone thinks. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:56, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

==Use Of The Term Murder==
All murder involves killing but not all killing is murder. That is clear by the Conservative Bible Project's revision of "thou shall not kill" to "thou shall not murder." Murder a legal term referring to the unlawful killing. If we are to insistent on calling abortion murder (which by the way abortion is a legal and murder is a legal term) we risk being inconsistent with our terminology. Semantics perhaps but it goes to the integrity of the site. --DavidS 19:50, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

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

== My Edits Reverted ==

To Conservative:
I would appreciate some explanation of the revision of all of my edits, which added citations for fetal pain, removed redundant Planned Parenthood information in the opening, and updated the abortion count. Admittedly, the sources were not cited correctly, but were there neverhtless. Some response would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks.

Libertarianism

2013-09-19T17:01:57Z

Dsherman: the original wording assumes there's a universal set of moral rules and a concrete definition of "traditional marriage"

'''Libertarianism''' is a [[Political Philosophy|political philosophy]] that believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in many aspects of life including economic, personal, and in foreign policy matters. Libertarians tend to oppose legal restrictions on social behavior that is considered by many to be immoral. The [[French]] [[term]] of ''[[Laissez faire|Laissez-Faire]]'', or ''let us do'', is a term that describes some aspects of the libertarian belief. <ref>"Libertarians are neither. Unlike Liberals or Conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook." [http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml]</ref> Libertarianism tends to emphasize a form of individual ''liberty'', and tends to support rights of private property.

The first systematic libertarian was [[Herbert Spencer]] (1820-1903), an English political philosopher whose books such as ''The Man Versus the State'' (1884) had a major impact in Europe and America in the late 19th century.<ref>Chris Matthew Sciabarra, "The First Libertarian," ''Liberty'' (Aug 1999) [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/spencer.htm online] </ref> The chief American representative was [[Yale]] professor [[William Graham Sumner]].

[[Ronald Reagan]] stated in 1975, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism....The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is....Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals."<ref> see [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html "Inside Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview" (July 1975)]</ref>

== Libertarian Philosophy ==

Libertarianism is best summed up in the Non-Aggression Principle, which states that government (or "private police agencies" in the anarcho-capitalist variant) should only exist to protect life, liberty, and property from force and fraud.

Libertarianism is closely related to liberalism, if this word is interpreted according to its original meaning of [[classical liberal|classical liberalism]]. Libertarians in America tend to be [[liberal]] on social issues but [[conservative]] on economic issues. Libertarians generally oppose government regulation of drugs, prostitution, and marriage (including bans of [[same-sex marriage]]. The Libertarian Party officially supports legalized [[abortion]], however, libertarians themselves are divided on the issue, since government protection from force depends on the personhood of the unborn baby (or fetus). However, libertarians are uniformly opposed to government funding for abortions (such as through [[Planned Parenthood]]). Furthermore, they oppose restrictions on [[pornography]]. However, they also oppose [[universal health care]], [[taxes]] and the [[welfare state]]. They are strong supporters of [[school choice]], and oppose continuing the [[public school]] system. Some libertarians support [[school vouchers]], while others are skeptical due to the issue of government influence over [[private education]].

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, i.e., how much one is allowed to do (also referred to as negative liberty). This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do (also called positive liberty).

== Libertarian Factions ==

Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party. Thus, more libertarians exist than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Two general factions exist in the libertarian movement. The first are those libertarians who apply the principles of right to person and property to an absolute. They believe that no person, group, or government is above the right to violate these two things. They thus believe that government itself is illegitimate because it violates person and property. These libertarians subscribe to [[anarcho-capitalism]], as first named by [[Murray N. Rothbard]]. They believe that law and security can be handled by private means in the free market. The other faction believes in a very limited government. They are often referred to as [[Minarchism|minarchists]]. Libertarian minarchists want the state to only enforce law and order but generally nothing else. [[Ayn Rand]] was a minarchist.

Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control in all areas. However, there have been fusionist attempts to mix libertarianism and with social conservatism. This is noted in particular by [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarians]]. They believe that social conservatism is a natural entity in a free society, but do not believe that it can be enforced by state interventionism. For instance, they may personally oppose [[homosexuality]], but advocate for [[marriage privatization]] rather than believing that government should sanction "marriage" exclusively between a man and a woman.

Outside the United States, the term "libertarian" refers to [[Anarchism|left-wing anarchism]].

== Libertarian Thought in America ==

While there are libertarian factions within the [[Democratic]] and [[Republican]] [[parties]], neither party is particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. While the Republican Party sometimes adopts libertarian-sounding rhetoric of small government in economic affairs, many libertarians see it as being a force that has increased government interventionism in these affairs. Libertarians generally, for example, are opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which they believe increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of the public. Most conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a necessary government program and believe security to be more important than personal liberty and privacy. Libertarians point out that such a view contradicts those of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who summarized it most eloquently, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Libertarians are also generally opposed to the [[Iraq War]], unlike the majority of conservatives.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government interference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

The libertarian movement generally praises the [[United States Constitution]], regarding it as the proper scope of the national government. They believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have overstepped constitutional limits. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, view the implementation of the constitution as the very reason the national government is the size it is today.

== Notable Libertarians ==
Libertarian-oriented writers include [[Frédéric Bastiat]], [[William Leggett]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Henry David Thoreau]], [[Lysander Spooner]], [[Herbert Spencer]], [[William Graham Sumner]], [[Carl Menger]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], Rose Wilder Lane, [[Albert Jay Nock]], [[Henry Hazlett]], and [[Isabel Paterson]].

The most influential libertarian of the 20th century was [[Milton Friedman]] (1912-2006), a leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]].

*[[Ron Paul]], Republican congressman from Texas, 1988 Libertarian Party and 2008 & 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate. Ron Paul is considered to be of the Constitutionalist and [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarian]] schools of libertarian thought.
*[[Gary Johnson]], businessman, former Governor of New Mexico (as a Republican), and 2012 Libertarian Party nominee.
*The psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, opponent of the therapeutic state and compulsory mental institutionalization.
*Nobel Laureate economists [[Milton Friedman]], [[F.A. Hayek]], [[Ronald Coase]], Gary Becker, James Buchanan, [[George Stigler]], and Vernon Smith.
*The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of some people in the libertarian movement, while others find her materialism and atheism incompatible with moral ethics and natural rights and law.
*[[Robert LeFevre]], significant in promoting libertarian philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s before it was a well-defined movement, with his "Freedom School" seminars on political and economic philosophy.
*[[Karl Hess]], speechwriter for [[Barry Goldwater]] credited with penning Goldwater's famous 1964 statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". Hess later became a major figure in the Libertarian Party.
*[[Murray N. Rothbard]] was nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He brought to life the anarcho-capitalist movement. Rothbard was an economist of the [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian School]].
*[[Samuel Edward Konkin III]], a significant figure in 1970s libertarianism, whose influence waned considerably after the rise of the Libertarian Party as he opposed political parties and voting as being against libertarian principles. He proposed instead a purely marketplace-based route to a free society, such as [[tax resistance]] and doing business "off the books".
*[[Robert A. Heinlein]], science fiction author, whose 1966 novel ''The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress'' was an influence on the movement.
*[[L. Neil Smith]], [[J. Neil Schulman]], and [[Brad Linaweaver]], science fiction writers.
*Several popular financial writers including [[Harry Browne]] and [[Howard J. Ruff]]. Browne would later run for President, twice, on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ruff declared his political philosophy as libertarian but as a socially conservative [[Mormon]] made an exception on issues like abortion and prostitution, where he disagreed with the libertarian view.
*[[Penn and Teller]], stage magicians turned libertarian evangelists preaching [[atheism]] and promoting libertarian philosophies, including controversial positions such as legalization of prostitution and drugs in their Showtime series, which sports a name that cannot for reasons of good taste be expressed here.
*The Canadian rock band [[Rush]], which has been together since 1968, often explores libertarian themes in their lyrics, like in "Free Will", "Tom Sawyer" and "Something for Nothing". Drummer and Lyricist [[Neil Peart]] claims to be a "left leaning libertarian." <ref>[http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/neil-peart.html]</ref>,
*Humorist Dave Barry, actor/comedian Drew Carey, actor Denis Leary, former MTV VJ Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery, actor Kurt Russell, investigative reporter [[John Stossel]], and the late rocker Frank Zappa have all referred to themselves as being aligned with or openly supporting the Libertarian Party.
*Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of [[South Park]], proclaimed that they are libertarians. South Park is vulgar, supports evolution, and sometimes attacks social conservative positions like religion. However, they also make fun of liberals' positions such as political correctness, environmentalism and atheism. <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/116787.html] Parker and Stone, Reason Magazine</ref>. The phrases "South Park Conservative" (the name of a book) and "South Park Republican" are used to describe the followers of these beliefs.
*[[Ed Clark]], the Libertarian Party's 1980 nominee for President. Clark obtained the highest popular vote percentage to date for a Libertarian candidate.
*Many Republican congressmen and senators hold libertarian positions, such as [[Walter B. Jones]], [[Rand Paul]] and [[Justin Amash]].
*[[Barry Goldwater]], Republican presidential nominee in 1964 often described himself as libertarian, although whether or not this was true has been disputed by conservatives.
*[[Glenn Beck]], political commentator, describes himself as a libertarian

== External links ==
* [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/ Libertarian FAQ]
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/ Open Directory libertarian links ]
* [http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html Black Libertarians]
* [http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page Libertarian Wiki]
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]
* [http://www.independent.org/ The Independent Institute]
* [http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute]
* [http://www.fee.org/ Foundation for Economic Education]
* [http://www.cato.org/ Cato Institute]
* [http://reason.org/ Reason Foundation]

== See also ==
* [[Herbert Spencer]]
* [[Democratic Freedom Caucus]]
* [[Republican Liberty Caucus]]
==Further reading==
* Boaz, David. '' The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Reader-Contemporary-Writings-Friedman/dp/0684847671/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223323253&sr=8-18 excerpt and text search]
* Doherty, Brian. ''Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Capitalism-Freewheeling-American-Libertarian/dp/1586485725/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259466101&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Hamowy, Ronald, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism'' (Sage, 2008), 644pp, sponsored by the Cato Institute; [http://www.sage-ereference.com/PublicBrowse.html Online at some academic libraries] also [http://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC&dq=intitle:Encyclopedia+intitle:of+intitle:Libertarianism&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Murray, Charles. ''What It Means to Be a Libertarian'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Tilman, Rick. ''Ideology and Utopia in the Social Philosophy of the Libertarian Economists'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Libertarian-Economists-Contributions-Economics/dp/0313315582/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[category:Tax Revolts]]

Harvey Milk

2013-09-18T17:33:26Z

Dsherman:

'''Harvey Bernard Milk''' (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American [[politician]], and the first openly [[gay]] man to be elected to public office in [[California]]. He served as a member of the [[San Francisco]] Board of Supervisors. His biggest victory was the month of his death. He was instrumental in the defeat of The Briggs Initiative that would have barred open homosexuals from teaching positions in his district. Although public opinion polls predicted its passage, he was able to mobilize enough people to vote no. It is also worth noting that then-governor Ronald Reagan publicly opposed the Proposition which helped its defeat. On November 27, 1978, he and Mayor George Moscone were shot and killed by [[Dan White]], a disgruntled, [[Democratic]] former Supervisor who had resigned earlier.

At his trial, Dan White's [[lawyers]] insisted that his [[Diminished Responsibility|judgment had been impaired]] by [[depression]] caused by a poor diet. This argument (dubbed the "[[twinkies|twinkie]] defense" by the media) led to a lenient sentence, provoking rioting and protests within San Francisco's gay community

{{DEFAULTSORT:Milk, Harvey}}
[[Category: United States Politicians]]
[[Category: Homosexuals]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]

Harvey Milk

2013-09-18T17:32:45Z

Dsherman:

'''Harvey Bernard Milk''' (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American [[politician]], and the first openly [[gay]] man to be elected to public office in [[California]]. He served as a member of the [[San Francisco]] Board of Supervisors. His biggest victory was the month of his death. He was instrumental in the defeat of The Briggs Initiative that would have barred open homosexuals from teaching positions in his district. Although public opinion polls predicts its passage, he was able to mobilize enough people to vote no. It is also worth noting that then-governor Ronald Reagan publicly opposed the Proposition which helped its defeat. On November 27, 1978, he and Mayor George Moscone were shot and killed by [[Dan White]], a disgruntled, [[Democratic]] former Supervisor who had resigned earlier.

At his trial, Dan White's [[lawyers]] insisted that his [[Diminished Responsibility|judgment had been impaired]] by [[depression]] caused by a poor diet. This argument (dubbed the "[[twinkies|twinkie]] defense" by the media) led to a lenient sentence, provoking rioting and protests within San Francisco's gay community

{{DEFAULTSORT:Milk, Harvey}}
[[Category: United States Politicians]]
[[Category: Homosexuals]]
[[Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom award winners]]

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2013-09-18T17:25:06Z

Dsherman: /* Highlights as governor */

{{Officeholder
|name=Ronald Wilson Reagan
|image=Reagan large 4.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse= Jane Wyman Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=40th
|terms=January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
|vp=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|preceded=[[Jimmy Carter]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=33rd
|state=California
|terms=January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975
|preceded=Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr.
|former=y
|succeeded=Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
}}
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004), served as the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989. He was the 33rd Governor of [[California]] (1967–1975), following a successful career in film and television. Despite attempts by some to portray Reagan as a quintessential [[conservative]], he was weak on several issues, including his relative lack of pro-life nominations to the [[Supreme Court]], support for a form of [[gun control]] (in 1994), acceptance of illegal immigration (1986 law), and criticism of term limits for president ([[22nd Amendment]]). Also, his "[[free trade]]" policies were not helpful to the working class.

Reagan succeeded in moving the nation to the right in terms of reducing federal regulation and lowering taxes--and indeed in promoting the conviction that government was the problem and private enterprise the solution. He cut taxes but despite his proposals, spending and the federal deficit went up. After a short sharp recession early in his first term, the economy was strong by 1984. Proclaiming "It's Morning Again in America", Reagan carried 49 of 50 states to win reelection. He moved the [[Supreme Court]] and the federal courts to the right with his appointments.

Reagan's [[Supply-side economics|supply-side economic]] policies were based on the libertarian ideas of [[Milton Friedman]] and the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. "Reaganomics" was based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with "[[Blue Dog]]" (conservative) Democrats to overcome the apparent majority led by Democratic Speaker [[Tip O'Neill]].

In foreign affairs Reagan rejected détente with the [[Soviet Union]], but not with [[China]]. His massive defense buildup forced the Soviets to confront their crumbling financial base. He rejected the legitimacy of Communism and in the [[Reagan Doctrine]] systematically challenged and eventually destroyed Soviet strength in the Third World. After 1986 the new leadership of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] who tried desperately to rescue Communism by cutting its losses; they came to terms with Reagan; the Communist empire collapsed in 1989 a few months after Reagan left office, and Communism was abolished (and Gorbachev repudiated) by Russia in 1991. Reagan is thus credited with achieving victory in the Cold War.<ref> Knopf (2004)</ref>

Always distrustful of nuclear weapons, Reagan proposed SDI, a space-based system to defend against nuclear missiles. The inability of the Soviet Union to match this new technological breakthrough forced it to agree to Reagan's terms for ending the Cold War. In leading the rollback of Communism in Europe, he battled powerful liberal forces that called instead for détente (peaceful relations) with Communism. As the Soviet system faltered and Gorbachev accepted Reagan's terms, ensured an unprecedented level of nuclear disarmament. His signature phrase in dealing with Communists was "trust, but verify."

In his most famous challenges to Communism, Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and gave the Soviets the American terms for ending the Cold War: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The Soviets were forced to agree, and watched their empire collapse overnight in late 1989, a few months after Reagan was succeeded as president by his Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]].

As a great communicator, and leader of the Republican party, he added a new base of "Reagan Democrats" (blue collar workers who were social conservatives), religious [[evangelical]]s, and [[neoconservative]]s; his success became the model for Republicans into the 21st century.

Not only was Ronald Reagan a smart individual on the surface, he also contributed many new [[insight]]s to the general public not yet available before.<ref>Tear Down This Wall, Laffer Curve, etc. See [[conservative insights]]</ref>

== Reagan's Conservatism ==
In a speech, immediately after assuming the presidency in 1981, he outlined his philosophy. After listing "intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises" as the ones who "shaped so much of our thoughts," he discussed only one of these influences at length:

*It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, [[Frank Meyer]], was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of "The [communist] God That Failed,'' and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

*It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.

*Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. <ref>[http://acuf.org/issues/issue13/040606news.asp Ronald Reagan's Conservative Legacy, ACUF]</ref>

==Early Life==
[[File:Reagan_graduation.jpg|right|160px|thumb| 1932 photo taken after his graduation from Eureka College]]
Reagan was born in Tampico, [[Illinois]], the second son of John (Jack) Edward and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The family finally settled in Dixon, Illinois in 1920 after years of moving from town to town. Jack Reagan nicknamed his younger son “Dutch", claiming he looked like “a fat little Dutchman.”<ref> http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html</ref> Reagan's father was a working class Irish Catholic, and an active Democrat. Unemployed during the [[Great Depression]], Jack Reagan held a minor position in the [[WPA]] during the [[New Deal]]. Reagan recalled numerous alcoholic episodes that cost his father many job opportunities. Nelle Reagan, a devout member of the [[Disciples of Christ]], greatly influenced her son, who remained a lifelong Protestant.

He attended [[Eureka College]], a small Disciples school where he developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in campus politics, sports and theater. Reagan was a member of the football and track teams, the basketball cheerleading squad, captain of the swimming team, yearbook editor and was elected student body president. Reagan was a political liberal at that point and led a student revolt against the college president. In his first year at Eureka, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan helped organize a student strike. He received his degree in economics in 1932.

To pay for college, Reagan worked many low wage jobs such as cooking hamburgers and washing tables. He also worked as a lifeguard at Lowell Park on the Rock River in Dixon for seven summers, where he saved seventy-seven swimmers from drowning.<ref> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/reagan/ Timeline of Ronald Reagan’s Life</ref>

After college Reagan became a radio sports announcer in Iowa. Although he was originally only hired to announce the [[University of Iowa]] football games, he became so popular in the Midwest he began covering Chicago Cubs baseball games at Wrigley Field. He also wrote sports columns in the Des Moines ‘’Dispatch’’.

===Reagan as Disciple===
Reagan took religious values into the presidency that he learned from his [[Disciples of Christ]] background at home and at Eureka College, a Disciples school. He was strongly influenced by Ben Hill Cleaver, the minister of the First Christian Church<ref>The formal name of the denomination is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).</ref> in Dixon, Illinois, during the 1920s, and by Reagan's mother, Nelle, an active member of the church. At many points the positions taken by the Disciples Church of Reagan's youth coincided with the words, if not the beliefs of the latter-day Reagan. These positions included faith in Providence, the association of America's mission with God's will, belief in progress, trust in the work ethic and admiration for those who achieved wealth, an uncomfortableness with literature and art that questioned the family or challenged notions of proper sexual behavior, the presumption that poverty is an individual problem best left to charity rather than the state, sensitivity to problems involving alcohol and drugs, and reticence to use government to protect civil rights for minorities. Reagan's experiences in the church and with the Cleavers provided early training in public speaking and offered a way of learning in which acting played a central part. Reagan's use of the jeremiad and his fusing of Judeo-Christianity and patriotism into a civil religion also have their roots in this early period. For her part, Nelle was a pillar of the church and the one who provided stability to the shaky Reagan family when the head was drunkard and a poor provider. She helped spark her son's interest in acting and believed the stage could be a force for noble purposes.<ref> Stephen Vaughn, "The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(1): 109-127. 0360-4918 </Ref>

==Hollywood==
[[File:Reagan1953.jpg|thumb|left|250px|1953 film starring Reagan and Dorothy Malone]]
In 1937 Reagan traveled to [[Hollywood]] to cover the Chicago Cubs's spring training games and look at prospects in the film industry. Warner Brothers studio offered him a one year contract with a starting salary of $200 a week. He then became famous starring in numerous "B" movies, where he typically played a supporting character rather then the leading role. In 1941 Reagan gave a well received performance in the [[Academy Award|Oscar]] nominated film ''Kings Row''. During the war Reagan was in the Air Force; he was assigned to make training films. He resumed his Hollywood career on release in 1946.

Reagan's movie career faded in the late 1940s but he made a successful transition to television, especially as a host, and became a celebrity on the speakers' circuit. He traveled the country as a motivation speaker for General Electric, attracting highly appreciative audiences for his polished, witty speeches based on a wide reading in current events and libertarian economic principles. Reagan also starred in the 1960s television series Death Valley Days. By 1964 he had appeared in over 50 films.

===Union president===
Reagan jumped into union politics, and was elected to five terms as president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], a labor union for movie actors and part of the [[AFL]]. As SAG President he traveled across the country giving speeches on behalf of actors. Until the 1950s Reagan was an avid liberal Democrat who strongly supported the [[New Deal]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and the [[Fair Deal]] of [[Harry S. Truman]]. He often campaigned on behalf of the [[New Deal Coalition]]. There was talk of running Reagan for president of the AFL itself.<ref> Ronald Reagan, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743400259/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&keywords=truman ''An American Life'' (1990) p 132]</ref>

Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], a bastion of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. In 1947 he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement."

While remaining a Democrat Reagan became increasingly conservative in the 1950s. After actively supporting [[Richard Nixon]]'s campaign for president in 1960, Reagan switched political parties and officially became a Republican in 1962. He realized that he had diverged greatly from the tax-and-spend liberalism of the Democratic Party.

[[Image:Reagantheater.jpg‎|right|thumb|225px|Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater. 1954-62.]]

==1964==

Conservatives nationwide saw Reagan as their new star when his campaigning for Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 was better received than Goldwater's own speeches. He raised an unprecedented eight million dollars for Goldwater. Despite Goldwater's defeat, Reagan's 1964 "[[Time for Choosing]]" speech helped launch his political career and made him became a probable candidate for governor of California.

==Governor of California (1967-1975)==

[[Image:Reagangovernor.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan at the Victory celebration for California Governor at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, California 11/8/66.]] In the 1966 gubernatorial campaign, conservatives generally supported Reagan over George Christopher, the Republican mayor of [[San Francisco]]. Reagan defeated Christopher, and incumbent [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] [[Pat Brown]] in the general election, taking fifty-three of California's fifty-eight counties. Reagan's strategists wanted to emphasize libertarian support for smaller government and less taxation, as the state verged on a revolt against high property taxes. As student and black unrest exploded in the headlines, Reagan's call for [[Law and order]] won the votes of former liberals. Reagan's victory marked the end of New Deal liberalism in California.<ref> Dallek, Matthew. "Liberalism Overthrown." ''American Heritage'' (1996) 47(6): 39+ Fulltext online at Ebsco </ref>

Reagan inherited an enormous budget deficit from the Brown administration. In his first year as Governor, Reagan froze government spending and cut ten percent of the spending budget in each department of the government. At the end of his two terms the $194 million deficit had been transformed into a $550 million dollar surplus. The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' editorialized, "We exaggerate very little when we say that Reagan has saved the state from bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980</ref>

When coming into office there was a growing number of anarchist protesters at the University California at Berkeley over the United States' involvement in the [[Vietnam War]]. The protests would become violent. Reagan sent the state police and later the national guard to handle the riots. It allowed him to showcase his populist themes of morality, [[Law and order]], strong leadership, and defense of traditional values. Reagan was reelected in 1970, after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators. Reagan's handling of this crisis helped to make him into a national politician known for strength and courage. <ref> Gerard DeGroot, "Reagan's Rise." ''History Today'' (1995) 45(9): 31-36. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext online at Ebsco</ref>

Governor Reagan briefly tested the presidential waters in 1968, but drew back when he saw [[Richard Nixon]]'s strength.

Welfare spending was a major issue in the 1970 election; with 10% of the nation's population, California had 16% of its welfare recipients. Reagan promised to cut the welfare spending by rooting out fraud and abuse, by requiring recipients to take jobs, and by collecting from dead-beat fathers. Democrats in the legislature supported a much more liberal bill, which advocated the welfare rights of the poor. Reagan personally worked out a compromise that passed and won considerable praise and some criticism. Its savings to taxpayers proved small, but it represented an important political achievement for both parties. Reagan benefited as well, emerging from the compromise as a more experienced and effective politician.<ref> Burbank (1991)</ref>

Reagan supported and signed laws to liberalize [[abortion]] in California (before the Supreme Court issued ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''), but later turned strongly against abortion.

Reagan's gubernatorial style, which carried over into his presidency, was expansive in looking only at the big picture, and choosing talented staffers who were given the power to handle all the details. Reagan seldom paid attention to the minute details of his own policies. Reagan was a powerful communicator, through press conferences and public appearances, with an uncanny knack for precise timing to make the maximum impact.<ref> Hamilton and Biggart, (1984); Ritter (1992)</ref>

Liberals across the country were puzzled by Reagan, and decided that he was a weak reactionary who would be easy to defeat if he ran for president. California liberals explained they were all wrong, that Reagan was the most formidable Republican since Eisenhower.

In 1970, he was re-elected by a landslide. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by liberal Democrat [[Jerry Brown]].

===Highlights as governor===
*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Legalized the shooting of illegal Immigrants, though the law was soon overturned by democrats after he left

*Despite pressure within his own party, Reagan publicly opposed the Briggs Initiative which helped it's defeat at the ballot in 1978

*Signed the Therapeutic Abortion Law, which had the effect of increasing the availability of legal abortion in California - later Reagan expressed regret for this and even wrote a [[pro-life]] pamphlet while he was president.

*Signed the Nation's first no fault divorce law

==Presidential Campaigns==

===1976===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

After [[Richard Nixon]]'s resignation in 1974, the weak [[Gerald Ford]] became president, and Reagan challenged him in the 1976 Republican Party primaries. The main issue was détente with the Soviets as promoted by Ford and Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]]. Ford won the first 13 primaries, then Reagan came roaring back. He criticized the federal government and politicians for being too large, too powerful, and too involved in American society. Reagan, however, named liberal eastern Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Control of the convention came down to the Mississippi delegation, which swung the nomination to Ford. However, given how difficult it is to run against an incumbent President in a Primary, Reagan's campaign was surprisingly strong. After Ford was defeated in the general election, Reagan retired to his ranch in California and continued to give speeches across the country. There was little doubt that Reagan was the dominant Republican for the next election, and he easily won the nomination in 1980.

===1980===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

Before the general election, Reagan faced a Republican primary challenge from the more moderate [[George H. W. Bush]]. Bush was highly established and respected as having served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ambassador to People's Republic of China and the United Nations, former chairman of the National Republican Committee, and two-term Congressman from [[Texas]]. Bush referred to Reagan's economic policies as "voodoo economics." After Bush won a surprising victory in the [[Iowa]] State primary, Reagan surged ahead after he outwitted Bush in the New Hampshire debate. He later won the primary, and ironically named George H. W. Bush as his running mate.

Reagan was able to crusade against the failures of incumbent Democrat, President [[Jimmy Carter]]. There was runaway [[stagflation]], soaring [[interest rates]], persistent [[unemployment]], a series of humiliations abroad, and a weakened [[military]] in the face of growing Soviet superpower. As Reagan put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." The most pressing foreign policy crisis was that [[Iran]]ian President [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] was holding fifty- two Americans hostage. All of Carter's diplomatic attempts had failed.

Reagan feared that the [[Soviet Union]]'s military had become much more powerful then the United States'. He proposed stronger defense systems and a larger military. Carter fought back, lashing out at Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war. A liberal Republican [[John Anderson]] ran a third party campaign which received 7% of the popular vote. Reagan won a landslide victory - receiving 51% of the popular vote and winning 44 of 50 states. In the 20th century, only two presidents received a larger electoral majority: Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972. <ref>[http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biography-of-us-president-ronald-reagan-part-8-campaign.htm Biography of U.S. President Ronald Reagan]</ref> His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House. The election marked the last hurrah of the New Deal era, the final collapse of the [[New Deal Coalition]] and indeed the end of liberalism as a coherent policy.<ref> Busch 2005</ref>

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|right|thumb|325px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States on January 20, 1981. On that same day Ayatollah released the hostages after keeping them in captivity for 444 days.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

Reagan rebuffed liberals who complained he was killing the New Deal. Noting that he voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, as well as Truman in 1948, Reagan said he was trying to repeal the "[[Great Society]]'' enacted by liberals in the mid-1960s.<ref>David Gergen, [http://books.google.com/books?id=68rBxuO7EsMC&pg=PA351&dq=reagan+%22great+society%22+roosevelt+truman&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES ''Eyewitness to Power'' (2000) p 351]</ref>

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Ronald Reagan
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[George H.W. Bush]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Alexander Haig]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1982-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Donald Regan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[James Baker]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Nicholas Brady]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[Frank C. Carlucci]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[William Smith]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[Edwin Meese III]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Richard Thornburgh]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of the Interior]]
| [[James G. Watt]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[William P. Clark, Jr.]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Donald Hodel]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[John Rusling Block]]
| 1981-1986
|-
|
| [[Richard E. Lyng]]
| 1986-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Howard M. Baldrige, Jr.]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[C. William Verity, Jr.]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Raymond J. Donovan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William E. Brock]]
| 1985–1987
|-
|
| [[Ann Dore McLaughlin]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Richard S. Schweiker]]
| 1981–1983
|-
|
| [[Margaret Heckler]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Otis R. Bowen]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Terrel Bell]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William Bennett]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Lauro Cavazos]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Drew Lewis]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[Elizabeth Dole]]
| 1983-1987
|-
|
| [[James H. Burnley IV]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James B. Edwards]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[Donald Paul Hodel]]
| 1982-1985
|-
|
| [[John S. Herrington]]
| 1985-1989
|-
|}

===Assassination Attempt===

On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot near the heart after giving a routine speech.<ref> The assassin was [[John Hinckley]], a mentally disturbed man who didn't shoot Reagan for political reasons, but instead did to impress an actress he had never met.</ref> Surgeons at George Washington University Hospital saved his life and despite his age he recovered quickly. White House Press Secretary [[James Brady]] was shot in the head, became permanently disabled; Brady then became an icon of the anti-gun movement.

The assassination attempt came at a critical moment and disarmed the opposition in Congress, enabling Reagan to pass his major legislation even though the Democrats controlled the House.

===1984 Reelection===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1984]]''

In 1984, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8%. of the popular vote. <ref>[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1984 National Archives]</ref> <ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984 Leip, David: 1984 Presidential Election Results.]</ref>

During his second term, he helped end the Cold War with the help of Margaret Thatcher and some assistance from Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by their not being able to compete with defense spending.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]]
As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "[[Reaganomics]]." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the [[Tax Reform Act]], which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The [[income tax]] rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the same time, Reagan sought to close tax loopholes so that the wealthy would not be able to get away with paying less tax than low to middle income earners. By the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without [[recession]] or [[depression]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

====PATCO Strike====
[[File:Time-8-17-81.jpg|thumb|250px| ''Time'' Aug 17, 1981. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html read story]]]On 3 August 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), walked off the job. PATCO had supported Reagan in the 1980 election but now was making exorbitant demands regarding high raises, early retirement, and reduced hours. The Federal Aviation Administration made a generous offer but PATCO said no and called a strike. PATCO assumed it would shut down all air traffic and paralyze the economy, forcing the government to surrender, but they misjudged Ronald Reagan. Under federal law, the strike was illegal. Reagan ordered the strikers as a group to return to work. Some returned but most did not; he ordered individual strikers to return, and again most refused. Reagan was ready; secretly the Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis had readied military replacements. It was the first time in over 50 years in a major strike that replacements were used. Two days later, the president fired 11,000 strikers, and they never were rehired. The planes were flying and labor unions suffered their worst defeat since the 1920s. Reagan's dramatic action energized corporations to resist union demands, and sped up the rapid decline in union membership and the political power of union bosses.<ref>"Turbulence in the Tower," [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html ''Time'' Aug. 17, 1981]; Paul L. Butterworth, et al., "More than a Labor Dispute: The PATCO Strike of 1981," ''Essays in Economic & Business History'' 2005 23:125-139</ref>

===Social Security Reform 1983===
Mounting concerns that rising Social Security benefits were causing a long-term deficit and were growing too fast resulted in a bipartisan compromise in 1983. Brokered by conservative [[Alan Greenspan]] and liberal [[Claude Pepper]], the agreement lowered benefits over the next 75 years and brought the system into balance. Key provisions included a gradual increase over 25 years in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to take account of longer life expectancy. (People could retire younger, but at a reduced rate of benefits.) Millions of people were added to the system, especially employees of state governments and of nonprofit organizations.<ref> 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform (1983) [http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html online version]; "Claude Pepper and Social Security Reform - 1981-1983," [http://www.claudepeppercenter.fsu.edu/webexhibits/socialsecurityreform/socialsecurityreform1981to1983.htm online exhibit]; Paul Charles Light, ''Artful Work: The Politics of Social Security Reform'' (1985)</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, he named little-known Arizona judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Liberals, who had been ready for a knock-down battle, were stunned and meekly voted for her. Some Pro-Life groups were worried about her abortion position, which was unknown. She was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated conservative judge [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. Senate liberals attacked Bork as being too conservative. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] criticized him, saying,
:''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

The U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. Reagan turned to the much less controversial Californian [[Anthony Kennedy]] he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on drugs", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in television advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use dropped from 33% of high-school seniors in 1980 to 12% in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==

===Strategic Defense Initiative===

Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars were spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, the main goal was achieved of forcing the Soviets to realize they could no longer compete in the Cold War.

The threat the Soviet Union felt from the SDI initiative forced them to negotiate an end to the arms race, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote:
:''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>
===Dealing with the Soviets===
Gorbachev, weakened by his nation's economic malaise, frightened by SDI, and committed to reforming the Soviet system before it collapsed, realized he had to end the Cold War to save Communism. Reagan proved willing to deal, but had to face three sources of criticism inside the U.S. The political right represented by the ''[[National Review]]'' and columnists such as [[George F. Will]] feared it was all a Soviet trap. Reagan used his enormous influence within the conservative movement to disarm these critics before disarming the Russians. Second were the "realists", led by Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, who thought Reagan was going too far. The third group comprised segments of the intelligence community and military; they did not believe that the Soviet Union was as weak as Reagan and secretary of state, George P. Shultz, believed. Reagan, reelected in a landslide and at the peak of his power, pushed ahead with a series of agreements that effectively weakened the Soviet Empire and made it clear America had the initiative.<ref>James Mann, ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan'' (2009)</ref>

By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

Reagan also brought about the collapse of the [[Berlin Wall]], which was a symbol of [[communism]] and oppressed the [[freedom]] of East Berliners that wanted to move to West Berlin.

===[[Containment]] and the Iranian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]] Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[SDI|missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one.

One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this:

{{cquote|'''''He proved he was right about the big things.'' Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet]] threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by insincere and dangerous critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). ''When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight.'' More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence.

'''''He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''''' <ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>}}

[[Brian Mulroney]], the [[Canada|Canadian]] Prime Minister, Eulogized Reagan at his state funeral:
{{cquote|'''Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. ''And we know now who was right.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>}}

Former Reagan speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] paid tribute to the fallen president in a [[Wall Street Journal]] editorial. In it, Noonan noted:
{{Cquote|'''Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know-Nothing-Cowboy-Gunslinger-Dimwit. ''All presidents should be so stupid...'''''<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>}}

===Thatcher on Reagan===

Upon his death, [[Margaret Thatcher]], in very ill health from a series of strokes, insisted upon traveling to America to bid farewell to her old friend, and taped a stirring tribute to him:
{{cquote|'''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. ''When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.'''''

'''When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. ''Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.'' Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'.'''

'''But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. ''Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>}}

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|250px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential [[Medal of Freedom]]. Reagan was becoming increasingly forgetful. In November 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed in August with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a degenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity.

[[See Reagan's letter to the American people regarding his disease.]])

He died at his [[Los Angeles|Bel Air]] home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history after [[Gerald Ford]]. Reagan was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, located in Sima Valley, California, on June 11, 2004.<ref>[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/listviewf.aspx?session_args=NCrq/CB0Nbp/onw6gOr7mg==&p=LM2002EX&tx=13&h1=7&h2=3&sw=lm_exhibit&lm=libraryandmuseum&args_a=cms&args_b=32&argsb=N Exhibitions]</ref>

==Legacy==
There is growing consensus among scholars, both conservative and liberal, that he was the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan left a major imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics.<ref>"As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in ''Reviews in American History,'' Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," ''Enterprise & Society'', Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. </ref>

==Family==
In 1940 Reagan married actress Jane Wyman, who won an Oscar for her 1948 movie ''Johnny Belinda''. They had three children together: Maureen Elizabeth Reagan (1941-2001), who passed away from malignant [[melanoma]] within months of diagnosis, at age 60; Michael Edward Reagan(b. 1945-)<ref>Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Wyman and Reagan. See conservapedia.com: "[[Michael Reagan]]"</ref>, and Christine Reagan (June 26 & 27, 1947). She was born prematurely and survived only one day. The baby's death traumatized Wyman and she divorced Reagan in 1948.

In 1952 he married actress [[Nancy Reagan|Nancy Davis]] (b. 1921), whom he met in 1949. They remained married until his death in 2004. Together they had two children, Patricia "Patti" Ann Davis (b. 1952) and Ronald Prescott Reagan (b. 1958).

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was the first president to break the so-called "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office (although an attempt was made on his life in 1981).
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency for a first term.
*Reagan loved [[jelly bean]]s.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/fun-stuff/bean-art/?gallery=american-history Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans.]
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>
*Reagan played college football player [[George Gipp]] in the film ''Knute Rockne: All American'' (1940), and was affectionately known as "The Gipper" ever since.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>
*Reagan signed Proclamation 5018 declaring 1983 the [[Year of the Bible]].

== Quotes ==
"Socialists can provide you shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you are ill, all the things guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave."
*"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=tzR2IgNgRK4C&pg=PA160&dq=I+have+wondered+at+times+what+the+Ten+Commandments+would+have+looked+like+if+Moses+had+run+them+through+the+US+Congress&ei=8GsPSrrnOI_CzATl8sGMCw Chapter 9 Page 160] The United States Congress by Ross M. English</ref>
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." - March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[Founding Fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - October 16, 1973
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>
*"It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." - Commencement address to The Citadel, 1993
*"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."<ref>New York Times, September 22, 1980</ref>
*"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
*"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Aug. 23, 1984<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ViUb1DLpnS4C&pg=RA1-PA373&dq=%22ever+forget+that+we+are+One+Nation+Under+God%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES William J. Federer, ed. ''Treasury of Presidential Quotations'' p 373</ref>
*"If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Xn4JEGVh-bYC&pg=PA93&dq=When+you+can%27t+make+them+see+the+light,+make+them+feel+the+heat.&ei=tvAlSsrrKZOCygS9_qycBw
Ronald Reagan: how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader‎ - Page 93] by Dinesh D'Souza</ref>
*"I, too, have always believed that God's greatest gift is human life and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=65Sd1VzUBacC&q=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&dq=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&ei=rf5USpawCZnkygTa8LyVBw Ronald Reagan] by Office of the Federal Register</ref>
*"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=aF8YAAAAIAAJ&dq=Concentrated+power+has+always+been+the+enemy+of+liberty&ei=FE6PSuHhCYuSygSV-fCzBw War and conflict quotations P.105, by Michael C. Thomsett, Jean F. Thomsett]</ref>
*"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
*"some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

==Also See==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
* [[Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Flamm, Michael and John Ehrman. ''Debating the Reagan Presidency'' (2009), key issues explained; includes primary sources
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Troy, Gill. ''The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Revolution-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0195317106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861138&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Diggins, John. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008), 528 pages, by leading conservative historian.
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Sutcliffe, Jane. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008) 48 pages; for elementary school; [http://books.google.com/books?id=_H_u21ebGcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' (1981).
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. (1981). Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Shirley, Craig. ''Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All'' (2005) on 1976 campaign; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Revolution-Untold-Campaign-Started/dp/0785260498/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0700614087&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SWJK392VVCTPEDPDKJE excerpt and text search]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wapshott, Nicholas. '' Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: a political marriage‎'' (2007) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=5HOuTL508F0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Reagan, Ronald. ''The Reagan Diaries: Extended Selections‎'' ed. by Douglas Brinkley (2007)
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s

====Primary sources by Reagan associates====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stockman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary

===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by Alfred Regnery
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Ronald Wilson}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[category:1960s]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Actors]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Labor Union Leaders]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Former Liberals]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Former Governors]]

Talk:Causes of atheism

2013-09-18T17:14:36Z

Dsherman:

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}
:::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reason Two Is Nonsense==
Logically speaking, how can someone be both an atheist and a maltheist? How can someone hate a God they do not believe in? Unless someone can put forth a reasoned argument that it's not contradictory, please remove it.

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::You didn't provide a convincing case. Plus, you provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true. In addition, moral depravity [[Atheism and morality|is still a good reason to list first.]] The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] Also, [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Your argument is circular: Moral Depravity causes atheism and because of atheism people become morally depraved. Sort of "Chicken and the egg", no? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I see that Max, Conservapedia's atheist apologist has shown up. The prophet Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Second, a deceitful heart can become even more depraved. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Calling you out on your poor scholarship =/= atheist apologist. You show me where i have been an apologist for atheist behavior or retract. I am trying to make CP better but looking more and more like a wasted effort. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::My only comment on this will be. Max I fear you're fighting a losing battle. User:Conservative is not interested in changing his world view. So despite what even I find insulting, please try and make this site a better place so you can show people the good stuff and not, well, the frankly weird and certainly not encyclopedic[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 00:22, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I can look to find some sources I like as far as "acculturation". Plus, I could include in the section how bad company corrupts good morals and cite applicable cases. For example, the [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.
::::The universe [http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php is not eternal] and [http://creation.com/who-created-god Who created God is an illogical question.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
::::The [[Netherlands]] is a very secular and pro-evolution country. In 2007, it was estimated that they produced 80% of the world's bestiality films. See: [[Netherlands and bestiality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

==Majority of atheists convert...==

Maybe put the number? 70% [[User:Haveblue|Haveblue]] 21:59, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== other causes ==

1. Decline of [[family values]].[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/an-interview-with-mary-eberstadt-on-her-new-book-how-the-west-really-lost-god-a-new-theory-of-secularization/]

2. Socialism.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-atheism-thrive-on-economic.html]

Add to article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:27, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

== Add Darwinism to the list ==

Add Darwinism to the list and show that countries with higher beliefs in Darwinism have higher rates of atheism. Cite figures.[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html][http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html] Cite ex-atheist and agnostic Dawkins adoption of Darwinism. Also, point out that decreasing Darwinism will decrease atheism.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/cutting-off-air-supply-of-atheism.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:07, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

Mainstream media

2013-08-29T18:20:22Z

Dsherman: reworded for more neutral phrasing

[[Image:N.jpg|350px |right]]
The '''mainstream media''' ('''MSM'''), often referred to as the '''lamestream media''' for satirical purposes, are the increasingly [[liberal]] media organs that censor the dissemination of news.

The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their [[censorship|censoring]] or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to [[conservative]] conclusions, and their use of [[photo bias]], [[placement bias]] and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect [[liberal]] conclusions. The term '''mainstream media''' usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of [[liberal media | liberal bias]], while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.

{{cquote|''They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.''|||[[Andrew Breitbart]]<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75274 Tea Party Must Stand Up to Liberal Smear Tactics, Conservative Activist Says, CNSNews, September 14, 2010]</ref>}}

Examples include:

*Without any evidence of church attendance or Bible-reading by the [[Anders Behring Breivik|defendant]] accused of murdering 92 people in Norway, the headline of the leading Australian newspaper declared, "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian.'"<ref>http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/norway-suspect-fundamentalist-christian-20110724-1huqg.html</ref> The headline appears to be based in part on a [[Facebook]] page that was likely not even authentic.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. The Fairness Doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[Censorship|equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, or even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On August 1, 1988, a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]].

== List of mainstream media organs ==
[[File:MSMbyTEA.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Protest sign expressing [[Tea Party Movement]]'s attitude toward MSM]]
Significant mainstream media outlets include:

'''Newspapers'''
* ''[[The New York Times]]''
* ''[[The Washington Post]]''
* ''[[The Boston Globe]]''
* ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]''
* ''[[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]''
* ''The [[Los Angeles Times]]''
* ''[[The San Francisco Chronicle]]''
* ''[[USA Today]]''
* ''The [[Wall Street Journal]]''<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]] (see below).

Some media consumers do not consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to be part of the "mainstream media" as Fox News frequently presents viewpoints that do not fall in line with other mainstream outlets. For example, in 2007, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] declared that they would not appear in debates hosted by Fox News, but they did appear on other MSM news outlets.

However, ratings indicate that because of its massive popularity, Fox News could be considered to be part of the mainstream media by definition. According to ratings organization [[Nielsen ratings|Nielsen]]:
:* Fox News has the 10 most viewed cable TV news shows (as of Dec 2009).
:* Fox News mean prime-time viewing figures are triple that of [[MSNBC]], and double that of CNN, and exceed the total ratings of CNN, MSNBC and [[CNBC]] combined.
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" <ref>Authors unknown. "[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6 The State of the News Media 2007]." ''Project for Excellence in Journalism,'' 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.</ref>
[[File:Leftist News.gif | right]]
===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com ran an article by columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref>[[R. Emmett Tyrell|Tyrell, R. Emmet]]. "[http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!]" Creators' Syndicate, 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2007, from [http://www.cnn.com CNN].</ref> Examining the relationship between the [[alternative media|alternative press]] and the MSM, Tyrell writes:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the Internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumescence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

=='Alternative Media'==
Differing opinions also exist over the definition of a similar term - '''Alternative Media'''. Although some consider, for example, [[Rush Limbaugh]]'s launch to be the birth of 'alternative media', so too do the left consider publications like [[The Nation]] to be 'alternative media.'<ref>Albert, Michael. "[http://www.zmag.org/whatmakesalti.htm Alternative Media: What Makes Alternative Media Alternative?]" ''[http://www.zmag.org/ Z]'' Magazine. Retrieved August 2, 2007.</ref> In fact, many would view the [[Village Voice]] group to be the most widely published 'alternative media' outlet in the United States.

By whatever definition, most media watchers would classify as "alternative media" any media organ that is primarily hosted on the [[Internet]] rather than printed and delivered or mailed to subscribers. The alternative media ''is not'' exclusively conservative. It includes [[liberal]] organs as well. Some writers on these organs have suggested that the mainstream media has a ''conservative'' bias--by which they actually mean that mainstream-media organs are not as revolutionary, or as radical, in their thinking as are the writers themselves.<ref>[[Peter Dreier|Dreier, Peter]]. "[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/ For a Brief Moment, The Media Rediscover Poverty]." [http://alternet.org AlterNet.org], July 26, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.</ref><ref>[[Rory O'Connor|O'Connor, Rory]]. "[http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/ The Future of Citizen Journalism]. [http://alternet.org AlterNet.org], July 3, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.</ref><ref> [[Sheldon Rampton|Rampton, Sheldon]]. "[http://alternet.org/story/54339/ Has the Internet Changed the Propaganda Model?]" [http://alternet.org AlterNet.org], June 22, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.</ref>

At least one MSM organ, [[CBS]] News, attempted in 2006<ref>Pogue, David. "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World:
David Pogue Ventures Into The Blogosphere]." [http://www.cbsnews.com/ CBSNews.com], July 9, 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2007.</ref> to describe what a particular alternative-media segment (i.e., [[blog]]s) thinks of the MSM:
{{Cquote|They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media..that would be [you].}}

It is worth noting that liberal blog activity on the internet declined after the election of [[Barack Hussein Obama]] <ref>http://bloggasm.com/blog-traffic-for-liberal-blogs-down-58-in-three-months-following-election-conservative-blogs-down-36</ref>, and continued to decline after his reelection. This shows that the distaste for bias in the liberal MSM is spreading to the alternative media.

==See also==
*[[Liberal media]]
*[[Advocacy journalism]]
*[[Journalistic malpractice]]
*[[Deaths directly attributed to the liberal media]]
*[[Alternative media]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp Media Bias Basics.]
*[http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx Media Bias Is Real-Finds UCLA Political Scientist.]
*[http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/archive.aspx Bias Alert.]
*[http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html Who Controls the Media?]
*[http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main Ownership Chart: The Big Six.]
*[http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=626979 Media Lies on Libya Ongoing.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related Stephen Lendman talks about Libya and Media.] [[Stephen Lendman]]

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

{{Liberalism}}

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]

Classroom prayer

2013-07-10T18:29:41Z

Dsherman:

'''Classroom prayer''' (within Europe and North America) is teacher-led, predominately Judeo-Christian, state-sanctioned [[prayer]] in schools. The Supreme Court case [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) banned classroom prayer from [[public schools]] in the [[United States]], and in Florida in 2009 school administrators were prosecuted for praying at a school-affiliated, adult-only event.<ref>http://www.baptistmessenger.com/story/30D869A1C3EB8104A87DD4CA8659031D . They were ultimately acquitted.</ref> Classroom prayer has been banned in [[government]] schools in most other Western European countries also.

Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow school-led classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom. Some language teachers at religious schools teach the students the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary in the respective language(s) and begin each day's instruction with one or the other.

Christian [[homeschooling]] classes, in contrast, often begin with a classroom prayer.

Some private or religious schools hold religious assemblies, including religious services such as the Roman Catholic Mass, that permit prayer outside of the classroom, away from intellectual pursuits.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in [[U.S.]] public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' banned school-led prayer, citing the [[First Amendment]]'s prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion a precedent for its ruling. The UK has a little-observed legal requirement that all pupils "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship," except where the parent of the pupil has asked for the pupil to be excused from this.<ref> [http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980031_en_7#pt2-ch6 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 part 2 chapter 6]</ref>

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support a nominally secular but effectively atheistic position for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], echoing the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists,<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref> though no such phrase exists in the actual text of the [[First Amendment]] (the relevant part of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]).

It has been demonstrated that when classroom prayer is allowed, a corresponding drop in crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity occurs, further bolstering the argument to allow prayer in the classroom. <ref>http://www.helium.com/items/1792560-the-impact-of-banning-prayer-from-the-public-school-classroom </ref><ref>Halverson, Delia T. ''Teaching Prayer in the Classroom: Experiences for Children and Youth.'' Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989. Print. </ref>

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>. The [[liberal]] ''[[New York Times]]'' editorial page admitted that punishing a child for silent prayer would violate the [[First Amendment]]'s Free Exercise clause.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/10/opinion/personal-prayer-is-not-illegal.html "Personal Prayer Is Not Illegal" ''New York Times'' Dec. 10, 1994]</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on February 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On February 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over 'separation of church and state.' Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a unanimous judgement from 2008, the court overturned the ruling of the trial judge, determining that Borden's actions would be construed by a neutral observer as promoting religion. In response, the superintendent of schools was "very pleased" with the ruling.<ref>http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2008-04-17/Front_Page/005.html</ref>

== Classroom Prayer in Britain ==

''See also [[Education in the United Kingdom]]''

Many UK state schools, particularly Primary (Elementary) schools are Christian schools and have daily prayers and hymns at the beginning of the day, although [[atheists]] typically object to and prevent classroom prayer in UK schools just as in the United States. Over 1 million children in Britain attend schools connected with the [[Church of England]]. Such schools are funded by the government but attached to churches and as such, the children attend a religious service at least once a week during school time for a service where they pray together and receive blessings. Church schools are recognised for their distinctive Christian ethos and the impact this has on standards and all round education. The proportions of Church schools regarded as 'outstanding' (by Ofsted, the independent schools regulator) is much higher than the national norm and yet the Church schools are fully inclusive. <ref>http://www.churchofengland.org/education/church-schools-academies.aspx</ref>

==References==
<references />
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

The Atheist Experience

2013-06-22T22:11:50Z

Dsherman: /* Philosophical Views */

''Italic text''|}''The Atheist Experience'' is a weekly public-access [[television]] program and [[podcast]] run by the [[Atheist]] community of [[Austin]]. It is usually hosted by ex-[[baptist]] atheist activist [[Matt Dillahunty]], as well as various co-hosts. The show's hosts discuss various religious issues, and take calls from both atheist and religious, usually [[Christian]] callers, answering questions and attempt to offer advice, as well as debating on various issues, usually relating to branches of [[philosophy]] or [[theology]]. The show's hosts make clear that they are not [[scientist|scientists]] and will therefore usually avoid debates on those scientific facts often disputed between [[atheists]] and [[theist|theists]], such as details of [[cosmology]], [[geology]], or [[biology]]. Instead they will often direct callers to contact experts in the field in question.

The show is broadcast on sundays from 4:30 to 5:30 Central US time.<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/</ref>

==Hosts== 

[[Matt Dillahunty]]
[[Russell Glasser]]
[[Don Baker]]
[[Jeff Dee]]
[[Tracie Harris]]
[[Jen Peeples]]
[[Martin Wagner]]
<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/</ref>

==Philosophical Views==
On the show, [[Matt Dillahunty]] has repeatedly defined atheism as "a rejection of the premise that a [[God]] or [[Polytheism|Gods]] exist". He says that this does not mean that he accepts the premise that [[antitheism|no God or Gods exist]]. Dillahunty identifies himself as an [[agnostic]] [[atheist]], saying that he does not believe that the truth of what he calls "God claims" can be known.

Multiple hosts have also made statements to the effect that most people are atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed, and that "some of us just take things one God further"

In Matt's own words:
''I was raised in a loving, Southern Baptist home and was a fundamentalist Christian for over 20 years. After 8 years in the Navy and several years in the hi-tech game, I set out to re-affirm my faith with designs on attending seminary and continuing with a life in the ministry. What began as an attempt to bolster my faith became a continuing investigation into more topics than I ever suspected I'd enjoy.

After the first couple of years, reason forced me to acknowledge that my faith had not only been weakened by my studies - it had been utterly destroyed. The thoughts, writings and wisdom of people like; Robert Ingersoll, Voltaire, Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Farrell Till and many others, helped free my mind from the shackles of religion without a single moment of despair. I continue to study philosophy, religion, science, history and the many other topics which have helped me to understand reality and enjoy my life.

Having spent the majority of my life compartmentalizing my religious beliefs to keep them safe from skepticism, it's thrilling to leave the critical, investigative, hungry portion of my brain turned "on". While my own pursuit of knowledge is a powerful driving force in my life, I'd also like to prevent others from wasting another day on irrational beliefs. Education is the key ...and if my work manages to educate even one person, I'm satisfied.''<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/people/matt_dillahunty/</ref>''

== Memorable Moments== 

<big>'''Unicorn In A Box Analogy'''</big> 

On 11/07/10, a caller presented the famous (see: [[shockofgod]]) "What Proof And Evidence Do You Have Atheism Is Accurate And Correct?":
[[Matt Dillahunty]] replied "Didn't I explain this in the email?" and went onto to say it was a nonsensical question and used an analogy to explain his position and show how some atheists view claims about theism, effectively providing a similar example to [[Russell's teapot]], but using a different analogy:

<blockquote>
''I don't know how else i can explain this...but lets imagine that i have this box here [symbolizes a box with his hands] and Don ([[Don Baker]]) claims that there is a unicorn in this box and I say I don't believe him. I don't need any proof or evidence that my position is true. my position is validated by the fact because he hasn't presented any evidence for his claim. And when I open the box and look inside and don't see this then he tells me it's an invisible unicorn and i mention it wouldn't fit in this box and he says "no it's an invisible miniature unicorn." well i don't feel it. Well it's also intangible. Oh well how do you know it's there? Well because it speaks to me. Okay that's all nonsense He's made a claim and he has failed to provide rational evidence for it. My disbelief is justified by that.''
</blockquote><ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uGKU2DKQQ </ref>

<big>'''The Resurection'''</big>

On 7/22/12, Micah, a Christian in Charlotte, after a bit of setup asked Matt and his co-host Traci Harris <blockquote>
"Would you agree that..i'm not saying there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead if Jesus did--if Jesus was dead for three days and he rose from the dead would you agree that would be a supernatural event? That it's not something that we see in the natural world so therefore it's not science?
</blockquote>

Matt's answer was
<blockquote>
"I don't know. That's not enough details. One of the things is that death isn't extremely well defined we pull people back from the brink of death so i can't say for sure it would be supernatural i can say it would be certainly be extraordinary and would seem to be supernatural."
</blockquote>

The caller modified his question a bit to further clarify his point. Matt continued: <blockquote>
"the fact something hasn't previously been observed doesn't mean it's necessarily unnatural what i said when i answered your question is i don't know what i'd would consider it there's not enough information but i am willing to grant is that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be!"
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4R0Kz-aQug</ref>

==Notable Guests==
*[[AronRa]]
*Teresa McBain of The Clergy Project
*[[Ray Comfort]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/?full=1#table Episode Archive]

[http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience Show live stream page]

[[category:television]]
[[category:atheism]]

The Atheist Experience

2013-06-22T22:11:27Z

Dsherman:

''Italic text''|}''The Atheist Experience'' is a weekly public-access [[television]] program and [[podcast]] run by the [[Atheist]] community of [[Austin]]. It is usually hosted by ex-[[baptist]] atheist activist [[Matt Dillahunty]], as well as various co-hosts. The show's hosts discuss various religious issues, and take calls from both atheist and religious, usually [[Christian]] callers, answering questions and attempt to offer advice, as well as debating on various issues, usually relating to branches of [[philosophy]] or [[theology]]. The show's hosts make clear that they are not [[scientist|scientists]] and will therefore usually avoid debates on those scientific facts often disputed between [[atheists]] and [[theist|theists]], such as details of [[cosmology]], [[geology]], or [[biology]]. Instead they will often direct callers to contact experts in the field in question.

The show is broadcast on sundays from 4:30 to 5:30 Central US time.<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/</ref>

==Hosts== 

[[Matt Dillahunty]]
[[Russell Glasser]]
[[Don Baker]]
[[Jeff Dee]]
[[Tracie Harris]]
[[Jen Peeples]]
[[Martin Wagner]]
<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/</ref>

==Philosophical Views==
On the show, [[Matt Dillahunty]] has repeatedly defined atheism as "a rejection of the premise that a [[God]] or [[Polytheism|Gods]] exist". He says that this does not mean that he accepts the premise that [[antitheism|no God or Gods exist]]. Dillahunty identifies himself as an [[agnostic]] [[atheist]], saying that he does not believe that the truth of what he calls "God claims" can be known.

Multiple hosts have also made statements to the effect that most people are atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed, and that "some of us just take things one God further"

In Matt's own words:
''I was raised in a loving, Southern Baptist home and was a fundamentalist Christian for over 20 years. After 8 years in the Navy and several years in the hi-tech game, I set out to re-affirm my faith with designs on attending seminary and continuing with a life in the ministry. What began as an attempt to bolster my faith became a continuing investigation into more topics than I ever suspected I'd enjoy.

After the first couple of years, reason forced me to acknowledge that my faith had not only been weakened by my studies - it had been utterly destroyed. The thoughts, writings and wisdom of people like; Robert Ingersoll, Voltaire, Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Farrell Till and many others, helped free my mind from the shackles of religion without a single moment of despair. I continue to study philosophy, religion, science, history and the many other topics which have helped me to understand reality and enjoy my life.

Having spent the majority of my life compartmentalizing my religious beliefs to keep them safe from skepticism, it's thrilling to leave the critical, investigative, hungry portion of my brain turned "on". While my own pursuit of knowledge is a powerful driving force in my life, I'd also like to prevent others from wasting another day on irrational beliefs. Education is the key ...and if my work manages to educate even one person, I'm satisfied.<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/people/matt_dillahunty/</ref>Italic text''

== Memorable Moments== 

<big>'''Unicorn In A Box Analogy'''</big> 

On 11/07/10, a caller presented the famous (see: [[shockofgod]]) "What Proof And Evidence Do You Have Atheism Is Accurate And Correct?":
[[Matt Dillahunty]] replied "Didn't I explain this in the email?" and went onto to say it was a nonsensical question and used an analogy to explain his position and show how some atheists view claims about theism, effectively providing a similar example to [[Russell's teapot]], but using a different analogy:

<blockquote>
''I don't know how else i can explain this...but lets imagine that i have this box here [symbolizes a box with his hands] and Don ([[Don Baker]]) claims that there is a unicorn in this box and I say I don't believe him. I don't need any proof or evidence that my position is true. my position is validated by the fact because he hasn't presented any evidence for his claim. And when I open the box and look inside and don't see this then he tells me it's an invisible unicorn and i mention it wouldn't fit in this box and he says "no it's an invisible miniature unicorn." well i don't feel it. Well it's also intangible. Oh well how do you know it's there? Well because it speaks to me. Okay that's all nonsense He's made a claim and he has failed to provide rational evidence for it. My disbelief is justified by that.''
</blockquote><ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uGKU2DKQQ </ref>

<big>'''The Resurection'''</big>

On 7/22/12, Micah, a Christian in Charlotte, after a bit of setup asked Matt and his co-host Traci Harris <blockquote>
"Would you agree that..i'm not saying there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead if Jesus did--if Jesus was dead for three days and he rose from the dead would you agree that would be a supernatural event? That it's not something that we see in the natural world so therefore it's not science?
</blockquote>

Matt's answer was
<blockquote>
"I don't know. That's not enough details. One of the things is that death isn't extremely well defined we pull people back from the brink of death so i can't say for sure it would be supernatural i can say it would be certainly be extraordinary and would seem to be supernatural."
</blockquote>

The caller modified his question a bit to further clarify his point. Matt continued: <blockquote>
"the fact something hasn't previously been observed doesn't mean it's necessarily unnatural what i said when i answered your question is i don't know what i'd would consider it there's not enough information but i am willing to grant is that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be!"
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4R0Kz-aQug</ref>

==Notable Guests==
*[[AronRa]]
*Teresa McBain of The Clergy Project
*[[Ray Comfort]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/?full=1#table Episode Archive]

[http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience Show live stream page]

[[category:television]]
[[category:atheism]]

The Atheist Experience

2013-06-22T22:10:44Z

Dsherman: /* Philosophical Views */

|}''The Atheist Experience'' is a weekly public-access [[television]] program and [[podcast]] run by the [[Atheist]] community of [[Austin]]. It is usually hosted by ex-[[baptist]] atheist activist [[Matt Dillahunty]], as well as various co-hosts. The show's hosts discuss various religious issues, and take calls from both atheist and religious, usually [[Christian]] callers, answering questions and attempt to offer advice, as well as debating on various issues, usually relating to branches of [[philosophy]] or [[theology]]. The show's hosts make clear that they are not [[scientist|scientists]] and will therefore usually avoid debates on those scientific facts often disputed between [[atheists]] and [[theist|theists]], such as details of [[cosmology]], [[geology]], or [[biology]]. Instead they will often direct callers to contact experts in the field in question.

The show is broadcast on sundays from 4:30 to 5:30 Central US time.<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/</ref>

==Hosts== 

[[Matt Dillahunty]]
[[Russell Glasser]]
[[Don Baker]]
[[Jeff Dee]]
[[Tracie Harris]]
[[Jen Peeples]]
[[Martin Wagner]]
<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/</ref>

==Philosophical Views==
On the show, [[Matt Dillahunty]] has repeatedly defined atheism as "a rejection of the premise that a [[God]] or [[Polytheism|Gods]] exist". He says that this does not mean that he accepts the premise that [[antitheism|no God or Gods exist]]. Dillahunty identifies himself as an [[agnostic]] [[atheist]], saying that he does not believe that the truth of what he calls "God claims" can be known.

Multiple hosts have also made statements to the effect that most people are atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed, and that "some of us just take things one God further"

In Matt's own words:
I was raised in a loving, Southern Baptist home and was a fundamentalist Christian for over 20 years. After 8 years in the Navy and several years in the hi-tech game, I set out to re-affirm my faith with designs on attending seminary and continuing with a life in the ministry. What began as an attempt to bolster my faith became a continuing investigation into more topics than I ever suspected I'd enjoy.

After the first couple of years, reason forced me to acknowledge that my faith had not only been weakened by my studies - it had been utterly destroyed. The thoughts, writings and wisdom of people like; Robert Ingersoll, Voltaire, Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Farrell Till and many others, helped free my mind from the shackles of religion without a single moment of despair. I continue to study philosophy, religion, science, history and the many other topics which have helped me to understand reality and enjoy my life.

Having spent the majority of my life compartmentalizing my religious beliefs to keep them safe from skepticism, it's thrilling to leave the critical, investigative, hungry portion of my brain turned "on". While my own pursuit of knowledge is a powerful driving force in my life, I'd also like to prevent others from wasting another day on irrational beliefs. Education is the key ...and if my work manages to educate even one person, I'm satisfied.<ref>http://www.atheist-experience.com/people/matt_dillahunty/</ref>

== Memorable Moments== 

<big>'''Unicorn In A Box Analogy'''</big> 

On 11/07/10, a caller presented the famous (see: [[shockofgod]]) "What Proof And Evidence Do You Have Atheism Is Accurate And Correct?":
[[Matt Dillahunty]] replied "Didn't I explain this in the email?" and went onto to say it was a nonsensical question and used an analogy to explain his position and show how some atheists view claims about theism, effectively providing a similar example to [[Russell's teapot]], but using a different analogy:

<blockquote>
''I don't know how else i can explain this...but lets imagine that i have this box here [symbolizes a box with his hands] and Don ([[Don Baker]]) claims that there is a unicorn in this box and I say I don't believe him. I don't need any proof or evidence that my position is true. my position is validated by the fact because he hasn't presented any evidence for his claim. And when I open the box and look inside and don't see this then he tells me it's an invisible unicorn and i mention it wouldn't fit in this box and he says "no it's an invisible miniature unicorn." well i don't feel it. Well it's also intangible. Oh well how do you know it's there? Well because it speaks to me. Okay that's all nonsense He's made a claim and he has failed to provide rational evidence for it. My disbelief is justified by that.''
</blockquote><ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uGKU2DKQQ </ref>

<big>'''The Resurection'''</big>

On 7/22/12, Micah, a Christian in Charlotte, after a bit of setup asked Matt and his co-host Traci Harris <blockquote>
"Would you agree that..i'm not saying there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead if Jesus did--if Jesus was dead for three days and he rose from the dead would you agree that would be a supernatural event? That it's not something that we see in the natural world so therefore it's not science?
</blockquote>

Matt's answer was
<blockquote>
"I don't know. That's not enough details. One of the things is that death isn't extremely well defined we pull people back from the brink of death so i can't say for sure it would be supernatural i can say it would be certainly be extraordinary and would seem to be supernatural."
</blockquote>

The caller modified his question a bit to further clarify his point. Matt continued: <blockquote>
"the fact something hasn't previously been observed doesn't mean it's necessarily unnatural what i said when i answered your question is i don't know what i'd would consider it there's not enough information but i am willing to grant is that sort of thing might be perceived as supernatural and could in fact be!"
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4R0Kz-aQug</ref>

==Notable Guests==
*[[AronRa]]
*Teresa McBain of The Clergy Project
*[[Ray Comfort]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/?full=1#table Episode Archive]

[http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience Show live stream page]

[[category:television]]
[[category:atheism]]

Jesus Christ

2013-06-20T22:31:33Z

Dsherman:

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is believed by Christians to be the prophesied Jewish Messiah. He changed the world forever with teachings of [[love]] and [[faith]], using logical parables like the [[Prodigal Son]] that flow from the existence of [[God]]. "Jesus triumphed over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will."

According to Christian believers, Jesus is the only Son of God and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from God and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===The Pre-existence of Jesus before His incarnation===
Though it is commonly thought that Jesus had his beginning with His birth or with His conception in the womb of Mary, and that personality begins with birth and develops with age, the Person of Jesus on earth was one and the same Person as was the Son of God in the presence of the Father before the incarnation. That is why the transition of His becoming a man on earth is considered such a great act of humility and self forgetfulness - to have left it all, for us, for which He will always be honored and extolled.

Though he was in the form of God , He did not cling to this equality with God, but emptied himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are, and being found as a man, he was even humbler yet, even to accepting death, even on a cross. But God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all other names, so that all beings, in the heavens, and on the earth, and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus, and that every tongue should acclaim, Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

===The Flight to Egypt===

King Herod, in his thirst for power and his paranoia at the news that someone was born, whose "star from the east" indicated that there was indeed a claimant to his throne, the Messiah of Israel, sent his garrison, most probably from the fortress Herodian which over looked the town of Bethlehem, Bethlehem, the home of David, the most Illustrious of Israel's kings, would soon experience the death of its two years and under male children, in Herod's pursuit of retention of his power. This has been called the Massacre of the Innocents. But Jesus was not among them as his father Joseph, being warned in a dream, had spirited the family to Egypt. And there they remained until Herod was dead, and Archelaus, Herod's son, was reigning in his stead. But the "Holy Family" was not to return to Bethlehem, but to Nazareth of Galilee, and so Jesus would grow an Israelite and a Galilean, and his first disciples, Galileans. But the fight into Egypt and the return from Egypt to the land of Israel, is seen by the Gospel of Matthew to have another reason intended for it by the Father. The son of God in the writings of Moses was, of course, Israel itself, and the Prophet Hosea would later write, God Himself speaking, "When Israel was a youth, hadn't I loved him, and hadn't I called my son out of Egypt?" But Matthew would write, speaking of the return of Jesus to Israel, from Egypt, in direct reference to the Prophet Hosea's prophesy, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son", thereby letting us know, in his own way, who Jesus is - He is the Son of the Father, the son, who had and would not fail. He is Israel, the remnant, and through Him, the nations of the world would be blessed, along with His people, Israel. In this way does Matthew share in the kalaidoscopic image of who He is. He is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the Son of the Father, Israel, who not failing, neither in the forty day temptation in the wilderness, nor through any part of His life on earth, became worthy and holy to become the sacrifice for the sins of the others.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precincts, and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra-biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which would try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fulfillment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and [[Three Temptations of Christ|tried three times]] to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.
[[File:Hoffman Christ And The Rich Young Ruler.jpg|thumb|Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann (1824–1911), 1889.]]
'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
[[File:Cordero El Redentor y la mujer adultera.jpg|thumb|300px|left|El Redentor y la mujer adultera by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharisees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

===The Turning Point===

It was at the city built in honor of Herod's son Phillip, Ceasarea Philippi, dedicated to the worship of Pan at the subterraenean breakout of the spring which was tributary to the Jordon River, the Ban(Pan)ias, that Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I am?, Simon finally answered, You are the [[Messiah]], the Son of the Living God. Jesus responded that flesh and blood had not revealed this fact but His Father had. Then Jesus gave him his new name Peter, meaning rock, and told him that he and the Church to be built on the rock would be thrown against the very gates of Hades itself, gates which would be unable to withstand the onslaught, setting Hell's captives free. (See Example 5. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]). From that place of confession, and from the time of Peter's confession itself, Jesus began to refine to His disciples, excluding all doubt and ambiguity from their minds as to the purpose of His coming, what it was all about. He the Messiah had come to die. They were to go up to Jerusalem, and there he would be rejected and denounced by the priests and elders, handed over to the Gentiles, and be put to death. And so began the 3 days journey from Caesarea Philippi, then along the eastern shore of the Sea of Galillee, along the Jordon river valley, through Jericho, and then the ascent to Jerusalem, Jesus telling his followers repeatedly the same message of His rejection and death, and then, if they could take it in, in such a way as not to suppress from their consciousness the main message He needed to instill into their acceptance, that of his humiliation and death, His subsequent resurrection form the dead. As the Gospel of Mark would record the words of the Lord, "For the Son of Man has not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life for the ransom of many"

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''
[[Image:The Last Supper WM.jpg|right|300px]]
It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?" Luke 24:30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Revelation 3:20-21 (NIV)

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what He commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, though not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

"Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses, 
and He carried our pains; 
but we in turn regarded Him stricken, 
struck down by God, and afflicted." Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Matthew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet [[Isaiah]] might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.
[[File:Veronese Lamentation.jpg|thumb|left|[[Paolo Veronese]], Lamentation.]]
On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ
{{Clear}}

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]]. The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Michael Horner of [[Campus Crusade for Christ|CRU]] has an excellent resource which offers a defense of the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] entitled [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus really rise from the dead?]. In addition, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] offers [http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm an online audio library which defends the resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]]. In addition, legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], John Warwick Montgomery, Lord Darling, John Singleton Copley, [[Hugo Grotius]], Lord Caldecote, J. N. D. Anderson, [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ.<ref>
*[http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf]
*[http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery ]
*[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ]
*[http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2008/05/rules-of-evidence-tools-of-truth.html Rules of Evidence - Tools of Truth]
*[http://www.phc.edu/gj_philjohnsonpap.php JURIDICAL APOLOGISTS 1600-2000 AD]</ref>

===Appearances of Jesus to His followers===
For forty days after his rising from the dead Jesus made appearances to His followers. These appearances were different from other risings from the dead, both in the Old Testrament and in the New Testament. These others are best understood as resusitations from lifelessness.
That is, the people had really died, and really had been brought to life but there type of life was no different in kind from what it was before their death. A prime examploe in the New Testament was Lazarus. All of them, died a second time, waiting for the Resurrection. The very first to attain to the Resurrection was Jesus Christ, and as the first he came the "first fruits" of us all. The resurrected body of Jesus was both the same and different from what it was prior to His death. It could pass through "solids". It coulo be changed, if this be the right interpretation, in such a way as be unrecognizable. And yet it was no mere vision, unreality, or a non-physical "spiritual" reality. He could eat and drink and be touched and felt. He was real in the ways that we know realness. And we too, according to Paul, will be one with Him in having "spiritual bodies".
"And that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve, after that, He asppeared to 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living,though some have fallen asleep.Then He appeared to James, and then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me..."I Corinthians 15:5-8

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancée, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Jesus and the Holy Spirit==
The Holy Spirit was sometimes referred to as the Spirit of Jesus. This was to point out the special relationship that Jesus had to the Holy Spirit. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, rather than having been sired by Joseph. He was filled by the Holy Spirit from the time of His baptism at the Jordon river at the hands of his cousin John, and He was led by the Holy Spirit, not only into the desert to be tempted by the devil, but also all His life on earth. His empowerment to do "works" and miracles came through the Holy Spirit given Him, as the Holy Spirit would afterwards be given to all his followers, and not solely by virtue His being the Son of God. But, beyond this, there was a more special and unique relationship that Jesus had to the Holy Spirit. He taught, and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul would later echo, that the Holy Spirit would be given and poured out, to His followers through Jesus ascended to the Presence of the Father, and that, in some way, perhaps mysterious but concrete, Jesus Himself, would be with them once again, in and through the presence of the Holy Spirit which they would receive. He had gone back to the Father in order to return in a new and more complete way through the Holy Spirit. He would not leave them orphaned. This Holy Spirit, then, with Jesus and the Father, constituted the reality which would reverberate through the ages for all new believers being bought into the Church, the Body of Christ (for every body needs a spirit) - " In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shepherds. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Although it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Anointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Anointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often anointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has anointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "anointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Anointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== Resources on becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px||Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]

''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://creation.com/good-news Good news of Christianity]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[Messianic Prophecies]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Christian paintings]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Mark Twain, the Ice Storm, and Jesus Christ]

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]