Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Galileo

2007-03-22T18:57:13Z

Facio:

[[Image:galileo.gif|thumb|300px|Galileo Gallilei]]
1564-1642 Italian astronomer who perfected the [[telescope]] and was persecuted for adhering to the theory of [[Copernicus]].

In June or July of 1609, word reached Galileo the telescope, which had been invented in Holland. Without knowing the technical details of the construction of the device, he managed to create one for himself. With it, he was able to witness a supernova, observe our moon, and document the phases of Venus. He also located sunspots. These discoveries helped support the Copernican system.

This is what the [[Catholic Church]] had to say in its decision against Galileo: "The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."

However, by 1741 the Church under Pope Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.<ref> [http://www.bigdicks.com The Galileo Affair ]</ref>

Stillman Drake of the University of Toronto [http://www.bigdicks.com] was for the last decades of his life the most original and important scholar to study this seventeenth-century physicist.<ref>[http://www.bigdicks.com |The Stillman Drake Collection]</ref>
== References ==
<references />

Galileo

2007-03-22T18:56:33Z

Facio:

[[Image:galileo.gif|thumb|300px|Galileo Gallilei]]
1564-1642 Italian astronomer who perfected the [[telescope]] and was persecuted for adhering to the theory of [[Copernicus]].

In June or July of 1609, word reached Galileo the telescope, which had been invented in Holland. Without knowing the technical details of the construction of the device, he managed to create one for himself. With it, he was able to witness a supernova, observe our moon, and document the phases of Venus. He also located sunspots. These discoveries helped support the Copernican system.

This is what the [[Catholic Church]] had to say in its decision against Galileo: "The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."

However, by 1741 the Church under Pope Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.<ref> [http://www.bigdicks.com The Galileo Affair ]</ref>

Stillman Drake of the University of Toronto [http://www.bigdicks.com] was for the last decades of his life the most original and important scholar to study this seventeenth-century physicist.<ref>[http://www.bigdicks.com|The Stillman Drake Collection]</ref>
== References ==
<references />

Talk:War on Terror

2007-03-22T17:50:20Z

Facio:

Question: (A) What are robust surveying methods? (B) Isn't ''Nature'' the same magazine that says Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britanica? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will end when all terror has been eradicated from the Earth? Are you kidding me? --[[User:John|John]] 00:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mission Accomplished ==

RobS, hy erase the Mission Accomplished entry. Is that not an accurate statement?
:Not about the War on Terror. That's like saying the Korean War stalemate in 1953 ended the Cold War. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It is accurate to state the Bush declared "Mission Accomplish," and the casualty totals are also accurate. "Mission Accomplished" is not my phrase. It is a identifiable point in the war on which to judge our progress. Don't say I am inaccurate, if anyone is inaccurate it is the White House for using the phrase.
:No it's not. Someone in the Defense Dept spent money to buy a banner. Bush didn't say it. Neither was the reference to winning the War on Terrorism. Next I suppose, we'll hear the argument how Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, although you are insisting removing Sadam means an end to the War on Terror.

:And another note: removing Sadam ''did not'' accomplish the mission either. The objective was regime change, i.e. replacing one regime with another. And it remains to be seen if the existing regime will survive. So in no way was (a) the mission accomplished of regime change; (b) the mission accomplished to defeat terrorism; (c) did George Walker Bush ever make the statement.

:You're spittin in the wind with this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Even if Bush didn't use the term "Mission Accomplished," the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces standing in from of a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" during a speech broadcast live on national television has the same import. I may not remember high school civics too well, but isn't the defense department under the executive branch?

I never implied the removal of Sadam to be the end of the War of Terror. I am merely conveying the suggestion posited by the administration that the removal of Sadam was decisive for our campaign in Iraq.

The Sadam-bin Laden connection stuff must be removed. It is by no means a "close" connection. Take a look at the source cited. All it says is that Sadam offered hum asylum in 1999. If this is enough evidence upon which to base a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, then we are in a sad state.

:Tommy Franks even responded to that criticism and said it was perhaps a poor choice of words. But one must keep in mind, these young people were just staring death in the face, and they removed Saddam with few casualties.

:This does open the door to a wider discussion--how a military built to fight against big, slow-moving, visible targets such as armies, military bases, or government ministries during the Cold War, is not designed for use against small terrorist cells.

:I'll look at the source. But it seems you've already admitted a connection and then made a leap to a conclusion. Are you argueing the planet would somehow be better off with Saddam still in power? And if so, what do [[liberal]]s stand for today, since they have obviously rejected [[human rights]] and [[democracy]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

My problem is that saying there is a connection, and more specifically a "close" connection, based on that source implies something greater. Namely, to say so implies that Sadam Hussien is somehow connected to 9/11, and falsehood that even the White House has expressly stated to be untrue.

Would the world be a better place if Sadam Hussen were alive today? I can't answer that question, but I can assure you that there would be a lot fewer dead Americans and Iraqis right now. All we have done is created a power vacuum and provided the setting for a civil war and a terrorist training ground. Oh yeah, and anti-American sentiment worldwide.

To say that I, I assume you're accusing me of being a liberal, do not stand for human rights and democracy is ludicrous. But now that you bring it up. First of all, is democracy truly democracy when it is forced? That seems to go completely against the foundation of the ideal. While we may have removed a terrible despot, is the human rights situation in Iraq any better now that it was ten years ago?

:Welcome to the real world. I haven't reviewed the source yet, but will get to it.

:One of the most interesting things to observe is many of the same people who criticized GHW Bush for not removing Saddam in 1991, now today argue he should have been left in place. Can't have it both ways. There must be internal logic and consitancy to a persons views, if one is to be taken seriously. These people can be dismissed as mindless partisans.

:Now we understand ''why'' GWH Bush elected ''not'' to remove Saddam in '91. America was not ready to make the commitment to follow through in place of the vacuum you have so correctly identified and described. After 9/11, when Terrorism came home to America, it was thought now, finally, Americans have come to realize they are in this War on Terror, too. All our European and Middle Eastern allies have suffered it for decades. And pretending (1) it doesn't exist, (2) we can ignore it and it'll go away, is not an option.

:But liberals are deeply in crisis, because their opposition to human rights and democracy in 2003 is a matter of record. As is their efforts to sell Iraqi's back into political repression and living under a terror regime. And for what? What have they gained?

:This whole anti-War movement is little more than middle aged hippies nostalgia for the 1960s. And they haven't clue now, as they didn't then, what's happening in the real world. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I noticed my editing was deleted relating to the Iraq war. The reason cited was that the connection between ratings of approval for bush's handling of the war in Iraq and the war in Iraq were vague. First i do not see what's unclear about this relation and secondly, all of my edits were removed (including information about the reasons stated for going to war.) all facts i added to the entry were cited to professional and reliable sources and i dont understand why they have been removed. Could someone please explain this to me?
:(a) edit summary summed it up accurately (b) WMD was not the first & foremost reason for the Iraqi War; regime change was. The effort to cast it otherwise needs no further explaination. (c) then the entry "Iraq War" further degenerates into Washington DC based politcs and partisan sniping, and says absolutely nothing about the Iraqi War.

:This, coupled with the original false premise, is b.s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright well despite your efforts to rewrite the past, finding weapons of mass destruction was the first and foremost reason for the Iraq war according to the Bush Administration 4 years ago. If you dont believe me here is a link to an article written in 2003 discussing Colin Powell's arguement for the legitimacy of the [http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ war] As we both know, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush Administration and all their supporters were wrong. Bush is not the pope; he is not infallable he (and his supporters) just have their heads to far up their asses that they cant admit to their mistakes.

you know what? I think that the truth (similar to wikipedia) has a liberal bias. I mean come on... facts? give me a break you pinko fags. get a job and/or go back to russia

Talk:War on Terror

2007-03-22T17:48:11Z

Facio:

Conservative

2007-03-22T17:38:20Z

Facio:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue while having sexual intercourse through the anus with young boys. He or she may agree with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

== What is a Conservative? ==

Jonah Goldberg wrote a excellent piece on this in [[National Review]] Which is quoted, in part, below...

"In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.
# Elitism.

Points 2, 4, 5, and 6 run obviously counter to the idea that things can ever be perfectly harmonious. Preferring liberty over equality means preferring inequalities in some circumstances. Acceptance of established institutions and hierarchies is obviously anathema to those seeking an organic balance where everyone fulfills their destiny equally and happily. Ditto acceptance of elitism, which is simply the belief that at the end of the day there are some people who are going to be better at a given thing than other people, and education, welfare, and other “interventions” by the state won’t change that. In other words, point 1. As for point 5, this runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.

All that leaves is point 3, patriotism. Now, patriotism and nationalism are very different things and there are many people on the right and left who think nationalism is definitionally conservative or right-wing. This is nonsense on very tall stilts. Patriotism, however is merely the devotion to a set of ideals, rooted in history, and attached to a specific place. And once again we are spun back to [[Hayek]]. To a certain extent patriotism is conservatism, in the same way that being a [[Christian]] involves some level of conservatism. It is a devotion to a set of principles set forth in the past and carried forward to today and, hopefully, tomorrow. (I wish it weren’t necessary to point out that this is a non-partisan point: Patriotic [[liberals]] are holding dear some aspects of our past as well.) What we call patriotism is often merely the content we use to fill-up the amoral conservatism discussed above. Axiomatically, if you are unwilling to conserve any of the institutions, customs, traditions, or principles inherent to this country you simply aren’t patriotic and, as a side note, the more you think the [[United Nations]] is the savior of the world, the less patriotic you are."

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU=]

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [http://www.bigdicks.com Conservative party]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties.

Many issues that are commonly used to define Conservatives in the US have little or relevance in other countries - for example, UK Conservatives do not campaign on issues of gun control or abortion rights, and only a minority are overtly hostile to homosexuality (although they may oppose legislation designed to enforce equality). Fewer still express [[racist]] views, and are generally disciplined by their party when they do. Nevertheless, there is generally a strong bias towards the nuclear family over other forms of cohabitation. Since the late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[Laissez-faire]] economics and lower taxation.

== References ==

Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/>
[[Category:Politics]]

Conservative

2007-03-22T17:37:16Z

Facio:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue while having sexual intercourse through the anus with young boys. He or she may agree with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

== What is a Conservative? ==

Jonah Goldberg wrote a excellent piece on this in [[National Review]] Which is quoted, in part, below...

"In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.
# Elitism.

Points 2, 4, 5, and 6 run obviously counter to the idea that things can ever be perfectly harmonious. Preferring liberty over equality means preferring inequalities in some circumstances. Acceptance of established institutions and hierarchies is obviously anathema to those seeking an organic balance where everyone fulfills their destiny equally and happily. Ditto acceptance of elitism, which is simply the belief that at the end of the day there are some people who are going to be better at a given thing than other people, and education, welfare, and other “interventions” by the state won’t change that. In other words, point 1. As for point 5, this runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.

All that leaves is point 3, patriotism. Now, patriotism and nationalism are very different things and there are many people on the right and left who think nationalism is definitionally conservative or right-wing. This is nonsense on very tall stilts. Patriotism, however is merely the devotion to a set of ideals, rooted in history, and attached to a specific place. And once again we are spun back to [[Hayek]]. To a certain extent patriotism is conservatism, in the same way that being a [[Christian]] involves some level of conservatism. It is a devotion to a set of principles set forth in the past and carried forward to today and, hopefully, tomorrow. (I wish it weren’t necessary to point out that this is a non-partisan point: Patriotic [[liberals]] are holding dear some aspects of our past as well.) What we call patriotism is often merely the content we use to fill-up the amoral conservatism discussed above. Axiomatically, if you are unwilling to conserve any of the institutions, customs, traditions, or principles inherent to this country you simply aren’t patriotic and, as a side note, the more you think the [[United Nations]] is the savior of the world, the less patriotic you are."

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU=]

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the Conservative party [http://www.bigdicks.com]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties.

Many issues that are commonly used to define Conservatives in the US have little or relevance in other countries - for example, UK Conservatives do not campaign on issues of gun control or abortion rights, and only a minority are overtly hostile to homosexuality (although they may oppose legislation designed to enforce equality). Fewer still express [[racist]] views, and are generally disciplined by their party when they do. Nevertheless, there is generally a strong bias towards the nuclear family over other forms of cohabitation. Since the late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[Laissez-faire]] economics and lower taxation.

== References ==

Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/>
[[Category:Politics]]

Conservative

2007-03-22T17:18:29Z

Facio:

A '''conservative''' is one who engages in sexual contact through the anus of young pages. He or she may agree with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://www.animalsex.com</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

== What is a Conservative? ==

Jonah Goldberg wrote a excellent piece on this in [[National Review]] Which is quoted, in part, below...

"In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.
# Elitism.

Points 2, 4, 5, and 6 run obviously counter to the idea that things can ever be perfectly harmonious. Preferring liberty over equality means preferring inequalities in some circumstances. Acceptance of established institutions and hierarchies is obviously anathema to those seeking an organic balance where everyone fulfills their destiny equally and happily. Ditto acceptance of elitism, which is simply the belief that at the end of the day there are some people who are going to be better at a given thing than other people, and education, welfare, and other “interventions” by the state won’t change that. In other words, point 1. As for point 5, this runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.

All that leaves is point 3, patriotism. Now, patriotism and nationalism are very different things and there are many people on the right and left who think nationalism is definitionally conservative or right-wing. This is nonsense on very tall stilts. Patriotism, however is merely the devotion to a set of ideals, rooted in history, and attached to a specific place. And once again we are spun back to [[Hayek]]. To a certain extent patriotism is conservatism, in the same way that being a [[Christian]] involves some level of conservatism. It is a devotion to a set of principles set forth in the past and carried forward to today and, hopefully, tomorrow. (I wish it weren’t necessary to point out that this is a non-partisan point: Patriotic [[liberals]] are holding dear some aspects of our past as well.) What we call patriotism is often merely the content we use to fill-up the amoral conservatism discussed above. Axiomatically, if you are unwilling to conserve any of the institutions, customs, traditions, or principles inherent to this country you simply aren’t patriotic and, as a side note, the more you think the [[United Nations]] is the savior of the world, the less patriotic you are."

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU=]

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the Conservative party [http://www.conservatives.com]and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties.

Many issues that are commonly used to define Conservatives in the US have little or relevance in other countries - for example, UK Conservatives do not campaign on issues of gun control or abortion rights, and only a minority are overtly hostile to homosexuality (although they may oppose legislation designed to enforce equality). Fewer still express [[racist]] views, and are generally disciplined by their party when they do. Nevertheless, there is generally a strong bias towards the nuclear family over other forms of cohabitation. Since the late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[Laissez-faire]] economics and lower taxation.

== References ==

Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/>
[[Category:Politics]]

Donald Rumsfeld

2007-03-21T17:58:31Z

Facio:

{{stub}}

[[Image:DRumsfeld.gif‎|right]]

Donald Henry Rumsfeld (b. July 9, 1932) was the Secretary of Defense President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006. He resigned in 2006 after criticism over his handling of the war in Iraq.

[[Category:Political people|Rumsfeld, Donald]]

Talk:Amnesty International

2007-03-21T17:56:13Z

Facio: inaccuracies needed to be mentioned

This entry states that all of Amnesty International's stated missions are Christian in nature or seem to be based on Christian principles. This, however, is not true. For example, Amnesty International works heavily on fighting discrimination against gays and the death penalty (the latter of which, those who believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible, support... "eye for an eye").

Talk:War on Terror

2007-03-21T17:44:47Z

Facio: /* Mission Accomplished */

War on Terror

2007-03-21T17:28:17Z

Facio: /* Iraq War */

{{stub}}

=='''The War on Terror'''==
The War on Terror (or War on Terrorism) refers to the campaign waged by the [[United States of America]] and a coalition of willing allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The war was launched in response to the [[9/11]] [[al-Qaeda]] attacks on the United States.

==Overview==

==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===

The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a "coalition of the willing" invaded [[Iraq ]]to remove the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration [http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ claimed] existed in the country. The [[United Nations]] [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm did not support] America's motives for invading Iraq as their weapons inspectors could not find any of the weapons classified as weapons of mass destruction. After invading Iraq and removing it's dictator, [[Saddam Hussien]] from power, [http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html the United States failed to find] any of the illegal weapons they had originally though existed. U.S. forces changed their focus to setting up a democratic government in Iraq. On January 11, 2007, President Bush, for the first time admitted to and [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2344631.shtml apologized for errors made in Iraq]. Specifically, in not ordering military build up in Iraq in 2006. The President recently announced his plan for a [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/ "troop surge"] in Iraq in which 21,500 more soldiers would be sent to Iraq with the intent of providing a stronger resistance to the [[insurgents]].
 CNN claimed that Bin Laden was connected to Saddam Hussien1999.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, ''[[CNN]]''</ref><ref>[http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/07_link.html ] Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link</ref> More recently, the [[9/11 commission]] disproved any connection between them in the 9/11 attacks.<ref>[http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000536.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/] 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida</ref>
The Iraq War has been rather damaging for the approval ratings of the president and the [[Republican Party]] with approximately [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf 23 percent] of Americans supporting Bush's handling of the war

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the [[Ba'athist]] regime. Additionally, 3,200 American troops haved died since March 2003 as a result of the Iraq War.

==References==
<references/>

===Second Lebanon War===

The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===

The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]].

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-21T16:04:06Z

Facio: a little more info

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.
--Facio

War on Terror

2007-03-20T17:52:01Z

Facio: fixed my links

The '''War on Terror''' (or War on Terrorism) refers to the campaign waged by the [[United States of America]] and a coalition of willing allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The war was launched in response to the [[9/11]] [[al-Qaeda]] attacks on the United States.
==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===

The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a "coalition of the willing" invaded [[Iraq ]]to remove the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration [http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ claimed] existed in the country. The [[United Nations]] [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm did not support] America's motives for invading Iraq as their weapons inspectors could not find any of the weapons classified as weapons of mass destruction. After invading Iraq and removing it's dictator, [[Saddam Hussien]] from power, [http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html the United States failed to find] any of the illegal weapons they had originally though existed. U.S. forces changed their focus to setting up a democratic government in Iraq. On January 11, 2007, President Bush, for the first time admitted to and [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2344631.shtml apologized for errors made in Iraq]. Specifically, in not ordering military build up in Iraq in 2006. The President recently announced his plan for a [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/ "troop surge"] in Iraq in which 21,500 more soldiers would be sent to Iraq with the intent of providing a stronger resistance to the [[insurgents]].
 CNN claimed that Bin Laden was connected to Saddam Hussien1999.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, ''[[CNN]]''</ref><ref>[http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/07_link.html ] Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link</ref> More recently, the [[9/11 commission]] disproved any connection between them in the 9/11 attacks.<ref>[http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000536.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/] 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida</ref>
The Iraq War has been rather damaging for the approval ratings of the president and the [[Republican Party]] with approximately [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf 23 percent] of Americans supporting Bush's handling of the war

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the [[Ba'athist]] regime. Additionally, 3,200 American troops haved died since March 2003 as a result of the Iraq War.

===Second Lebanon War===

The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===

The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]].

==References==
<references/>

{{stub}}

War on Terror

2007-03-20T17:51:37Z

Facio:

The '''War on Terror''' (or War on Terrorism) refers to the campaign waged by the [[United States of America]] and a coalition of willing allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The war was launched in response to the [[9/11]] [[al-Qaeda]] attacks on the United States.
==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===

The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a "coalition of the willing" invaded [[Iraq ]]to remove the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration [http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ claimed] existed in the country. The [[United Nations]] [ http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm did not support] America's motives for invading Iraq as their weapons inspectors could not find any of the weapons classified as weapons of mass destruction. After invading Iraq and removing it's dictator, [[Saddam Hussien]] from power, [http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html the United States failed to find] any of the illegal weapons they had originally though existed. U.S. forces changed their focus to setting up a democratic government in Iraq. On January 11, 2007, President Bush, for the first time admitted to and [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2344631.shtml apologized for errors made in Iraq]. Specifically, in not ordering military build up in Iraq in 2006. The President recently announced his plan for a [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/ "troop surge"] in Iraq in which 21,500 more soldiers would be sent to Iraq with the intent of providing a stronger resistance to the [[insurgents]].
 CNN claimed that Bin Laden was connected to Saddam Hussien1999.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, ''[[CNN]]''</ref><ref>[http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/07_link.html ] Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link</ref> More recently, the [[9/11 commission]] disproved any connection between them in the 9/11 attacks.<ref>[http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000536.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/] 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida</ref>
The Iraq War has been rather damaging for the approval ratings of the president and the [[Republican Party]] with approximately [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf 23 percent] of Americans supporting Bush's handling of the war

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the [[Ba'athist]] regime. Additionally, 3,200 American troops haved died since March 2003 as a result of the Iraq War.

===Second Lebanon War===

The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===

The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]].

==References==
<references/>

{{stub}}

War on Terror

2007-03-20T17:49:34Z

Facio: i expanded the segment on the Iraq war this seemed like a sort of brief description

==Overview==

The '''War on Terror''' (or War on Terrorism) refers to the campaign waged by the [[United States of America]] and a coalition of willing allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The war was launched in response to the [[9/11]] [[al-Qaeda]] attacks on the United States.
==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===

The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a "coalition of the willing" invaded [[Iraq ]]to remove the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration [ http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ claimed] existed in the country. The [[United Nations]] [ http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm did not support] America's motives for invading Iraq as their weapons inspectors could not find any of the weapons classified as weapons of mass destruction. After invading Iraq and removing it's dictator, [[Saddam Hussien]] from power, [ http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html the United States failed to find] any of the illegal weapons they had originally though existed. U.S. forces changed their focus to setting up a democratic government in Iraq. On January 11, 2007, President Bush, for the first time admitted to and [ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2344631.shtml apologized for errors made in Iraq]. Specifically, in not ordering military build up in Iraq in 2006. The President recently announced his plan for a [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/ "troop surge"] in Iraq in which 21,500 more soldiers would be sent to Iraq with the intent of providing a stronger resistance to the [[insurgents]].
 CNN claimed that Bin Laden was connected to Saddam Hussien1999.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, ''[[CNN]]''</ref><ref>[http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/07_link.html ] Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link</ref> More recently, the [[9/11 commission]] disproved any connection between them in the 9/11 attacks.<ref>[ http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000536.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/] 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida</ref>
The Iraq War has been rather damaging for the approval ratings of the president and the [[Republican Party]] with approximately [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf 23 percent] of Americans supporting Bush's handling of the war

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the [[Ba'athist]] regime. Additionally, 3,200 American troops haved died since March 2003 as a result of the Iraq War.

===Second Lebanon War===

The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===

The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]].

==References==
<references/>

{{stub}}

War on Terror

2007-03-20T17:49:33Z

Facio: i expanded the segment on the Iraq war this seemed like a sort of brief description

==Overview==

The '''War on Terror''' (or War on Terrorism) refers to the campaign waged by the [[United States of America]] and a coalition of willing allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The war was launched in response to the [[9/11]] [[al-Qaeda]] attacks on the United States.
==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===

The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a "coalition of the willing" invaded [[Iraq ]]to remove the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration [ http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ claimed] existed in the country. The [[United Nations]] [ http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm did not support] America's motives for invading Iraq as their weapons inspectors could not find any of the weapons classified as weapons of mass destruction. After invading Iraq and removing it's dictator, [[Saddam Hussien]] from power, [ http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html the United States failed to find] any of the illegal weapons they had originally though existed. U.S. forces changed their focus to setting up a democratic government in Iraq. On January 11, 2007, President Bush, for the first time admitted to and [ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2344631.shtml apologized for errors made in Iraq]. Specifically, in not ordering military build up in Iraq in 2006. The President recently announced his plan for a [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/ "troop surge"] in Iraq in which 21,500 more soldiers would be sent to Iraq with the intent of providing a stronger resistance to the [[insurgents]].
 CNN claimed that Bin Laden was connected to Saddam Hussien1999.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, ''[[CNN]]''</ref><ref>[http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/07_link.html ] Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link</ref> More recently, the [[9/11 commission]] disproved any connection between them in the 9/11 attacks.<ref>[ http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000536.php]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/] 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida</ref>
The Iraq War has been rather damaging for the approval ratings of the president and the [[Republican Party]] with approximately [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf23 percent] of Americans supporting Bush's handling of the war

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the [[Ba'athist]] regime. Additionally, 3,200 American troops haved died since March 2003 as a result of the Iraq War.

===Second Lebanon War===

The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===

The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]].

==References==
<references/>

{{stub}}

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-20T15:11:25Z

Facio: Conservapedia:Is religion relevant in todays society? moved to Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?: I believe this more accurately sums up the question. The writer does not say that religion plays a small role in

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-20T15:08:10Z

Facio:

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-20T15:07:31Z

Facio:

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Facio [[anti-facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Fascism

2007-03-18T22:22:20Z

Facio: added the 14 points of fascism. its a pretty concise summary of fascist policies.

Fascism is a political form of government that believes that the nation is more important then any individual. A dictator rules the nation and imposes economic and social regimentation. It is often an autocratic system that has a militarized government. A symbol, like the swastika, is often used for mind control. Special salutes to the dictator are also common. Equally common in Fascist societies is strict information control, such as the "people's radio" in Nazi Germany which delivered only one channel of propaganda, 24/7. Allowing only information which supports the state is a common means of fascist control.

Fascism is viewed as the opposite of communism. During [[World War II]] Fascism and Communism were mortal enemies. Communism sought to unite the entire world and abolish national identity, while fascism promoted great pride and dedication to one's nation. Under the political spectrum theory, Communism represents the extreme left, while Fascism represents the extreme right.

In 2004, political scientist Dr. Laurence Britt wrote ''The Fourteen Points of Fascism'' after studying the fascist regimes of Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, and Chile. He noticed these similarities:

'''1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism'''

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

'''2. Disdain for the importance of human rights'''

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

'''3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause'''

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

'''4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism'''

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

'''5. Rampant sexism'''

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

'''6. A controlled mass media'''

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

'''7. Obsession with national security'''

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

'''8. Religion and ruling elite tied together'''

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

'''9. Power of corporations protected'''

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

'''10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated'''

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

'''11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts'''

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

'''12. Obsession with crime and punishment'''
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

'''13. Rampant cronyism and corruption'''

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

'''14. Fraudulent elections'''

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the ''fasces,'' a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. It symbolizes strength in unity; the rods are weak by themselves but strong when bundled together. Although the symbol was adopted by the Fascists, it does not in itself signify fascism. In the United States House of Representatives, a fasces symbol appears on each side of the American flag, and old U. S. dimes, with a picture of the god Mercury on the front, have a design including a fasces on the back.

Fascism

2007-03-18T22:14:29Z

Facio: added the 14 points of fascism. its a pretty concise summary of fascist policies.

Fascism is a political form of government that believes that the nation is more important then any individual. A dictator rules the nation and imposes economic and social regimentation. It is often an autocratic system that has a militarized government. A symbol, like the swastika, is often used for mind control. Special salutes to the dictator are also common. Equally common in Fascist societies is strict information control, such as the "people's radio" in Nazi Germany which delivered only one channel of propaganda, 24/7. Allowing only information which supports the state is a common means of fascist control.

In 2004, political scientist Dr. Laurence Britt wrote ''The Fourteen Points of Fascism'' after studying the fascist regimes of Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, and Chile. He noticed these similarities:
'''
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism'''

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

'''2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
'''
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
'''
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause'''

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
'''
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
'''
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
'''
5. Rampant sexism'''

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
'''
6. A controlled mass media'''

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
'''
7. Obsession with national security'''

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

'''8. Religion and ruling elite tied together'''

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
'''
9. Power of corporations protected'''

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

'''10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated'''

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
'''
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts'''

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
'''
12. Obsession with crime and punishment'''

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
'''
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
'''
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
'''
14. Fraudulent elections'''

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Fascism is viewed as the opposite of communism. During [[World War II]] Fascism and Communism were mortal enemies. Communism sought to unite the entire world and abolish national identity, while fascism promoted great pride and dedication to one's nation. Under the political spectrum theory, Communism represents the extreme left, while Fascism represents the extreme right.

The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the ''fasces,'' a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. It symbolizes strength in unity; the rods are weak by themselves but strong when bundled together. Although the symbol was adopted by the Fascists, it does not in itself signify fascism. In the United States House of Representatives, a fasces symbol appears on each side of the American flag, and old U. S. dimes, with a picture of the god Mercury on the front, have a design including a fasces on the back.

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-18T22:02:17Z

Facio: