Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The South

2007-05-16T17:49:17Z

Freehan:

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[North Carolina]], [[Missouri]], and [[Kentucky]].{{fact}}

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]], today they are known for their patriotism and commitment to morality in government. From the end of the Civil War to the 1964 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. The Solid South began to break down in the 1968 elction, when the region split (with the exception of Texas) its electoral votes between Republican candidate Richard Nixon and Independent George Wallace. It is thought that this was a reaction to Lyndon Johnson's signing the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Today, the South is one of the strongholds of the [[Republican]] party, and is the most conservative region in the United States.

Compared to the rest of the United States, the South lags far behind in education. This is reflected in very low reading and test scores{{fact}}.

The South has always volunteered and served in the Armed Forces in disproportionately high numbers.{{fact}}

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-05-16T17:46:15Z

Freehan: /* No */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

==No==
I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The South

2007-05-16T17:43:51Z

Freehan:

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the Confedearte States of America which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[North Carolina]], [[Missouri]], and [[Kentucky]].{{fact}}

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]], today they are known for their patriotism. From the end of the Civil War to the 1964 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. The Solid South began to break down in the 1968 elction, when the region split (with the exception of Texas) its electoral votes between Republican candidate Richard Nixon and Independent George Wallace. It is thought that this was a reaction to Lyndon Johnson's signing the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Today, the South is one of the strongholds of the [[Republican]] party, and is the most conservative region in the United States.

Compared to other areas of the United States. Conservative voters constantly reject funding for schools, so the South spends little on its public education system. As a result, the region lags far behind the rest of the nation in terms of academics, with most states reporting very low reading and test scores{{fact}}.

The South has always volunteered and served in the Armed Forces in disproportionately high numbers.{{fact}}

The South

2007-05-16T16:43:20Z

Freehan:

'''The South''' is usually identified as the eleven states that made up the Confedearte States of America which consisted of [[South Carolina]], [[Mississippi]], [[Florida]], [[Alabama]], [[Georgia]], [[Louisiana]], [[Texas]], [[Virginia]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[North Carolina]], [[Missouri]], and [[Kentucky]].{{fact}}

Although these states once fought against the [[United States]] in the [[Civil War]], today they are known for their patriotism. From the end of the Civil War to the 1964 election, the "Solid South" as political pundits called it, nearly always supported Democratic candidates. The Solid South began to break down in the 1968 elction, when the region split (with the exception of Texas) its electoral votes between Republican candidate Richard Nixon and Independent George Wallace. It is thought that this was a reaction to Lyndon Johnson's signing the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Today, the South is one of the strongholds of the [[Republican]] party, and is the most conservative region in the United States.

Compared to other areas of the United States, the South spends little on its public education system. As a result, the region lags far behind the rest of the nation in terms of academics, with most states reporting very low reading and test scores{{fact}}.

The South has always volunteered and served in the Armed Forces in disproportionately high numbers.{{fact}}

John Adams

2007-05-16T15:48:11Z

Freehan:

[[Image:John_adams.gif|100px|]]

'''John Adams''' '''(October 30, 1735 - July 4, 1826)''' is considered one of America's [[Founding Fathers]], serving as George Washington's Vice-President from 1789 to 1797, and as the second President of the [[United States of America]], serving a single term from 1797 to 1801. In terms of party affilation, Adams was a [[federalist]], and was the only federalist to serve as President. Adams ran for re-election in 1800 but was defeated by [[Thomas Jefferson]] in the latter's "[[Revolution of 1800]]."

John Adams was born on October 30, 1735, in Braintree (now Quincy), Massachusetts. His father was also named John, his mother was Susanna Adams and his son was [[John Quincy Adams]].

Adams attended Harvard and, after a stint as a schoolmaster in Worchester, Massachusetts, took up the practice of law in Boston. In 1765, Adams wrote tracts such as the Braintree Instructions, which argued against the British Stamp Act. His cousin, Samuel Adams, attracted far more notice during the Stamp Act crisis, leading demonstrations and using far more colorful language (there would later be some confusion regarding John and Samuel. When John was sent to France by the Continental Congress on a diplomatic mission, the French initally thought he was the "famous Adams," that is, Samuel Adams).
In the wake of the Boston Massacre in 1770, Adams represneted the British troops, arguing that all Englishmen (and many colonists still thought of themsleves as Englishmen at this point) deserved a vigorous defense.
In 1774, after the crisis brought on by the Boston Tea Party and the resulting Coercive Acts, Adams became an advocate for American independence. Adams was one of Massachusetts’s representatives to the Continental Congress. He attracted the notice of other delegates at the second Continental Congress as one of the few to argue for independence at this early date.
In 1776 Adams was appointed, with Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, to draft a declaration of independence. Adams realized that Jefferson was much more gifted in terms of self-expression than he was, and the document was composed mostly by the Virginian. However, Adams did have a great deal of input, looking over drafts of the document. The Declaration that the two submitted falls into two parts. The first, which was heavily cribbed from English political philosopher John Locke, was a statement of political principles and of the need for colonies to sever their ties with England. The second part is a list of complaints against the Crown, justifying the actions of the Continental Congress.

Adams served the Continental Congress as a diplomat, serving in Paris with Benjamin Franklin (whom he did not get along with) and was later posted to the Netherlands, where he secured a large war loan to help the patriot cause. Adams chaired the American delegation that drew up the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which formally ended the American Revolution. However, other than the recognition of American independence and the establishment of boundaries, most the treaty's provisions were not honored by either party.

He died July 4, 1826 at the age of 91 in Quincy, Massachusetts only a few hours after the death of Thomas Jefferson. He was the first President of the United States to live in the White House. <ref> [[Encylopedia of Presidents, John Adams]] by Marlene Targ Brill, Children's Press </ref>

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President John Adams was grouped in the "Above Average" group, ranked 13th, with a mean score of 3.36 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

It was John Adams inscripted above the fireplace in the white house dinning room:
''I Pray Heaven to Bestow the Best Blessings on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. Let none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.'' <ref> [[God and the Oval Office]], by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2005. </ref>

==Quotes==

John Adams once wrote in a letter to Dr. [[Benjamin Rush]], "I have been a church-going animal for seventy-six years, and it has been alleged as proof of my hypocrisy." <ref> [[''God and the Oval Office'']] by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2005. </ref>

John Adams also said another time "Ask me not whether I am Protestant, Calvinistic or Armenian, as far as they are christians, I wish to be a fellow disciple with them all." <ref> [[''God and the Oval Office'']] by John C. McCollister, W Publishing Group, 2005. </ref>

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."<ref>John Adams, ''Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,'' December 1770 [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html The Quotations Page] </ref>

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." <ref> Quoted in ''Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989'' by Michael Beschloss </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Adams, John}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]

Benjamin Franklin

2007-05-16T15:42:51Z

Freehan:

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790), printer, scientist, inventor, philosopher, and diplomat, was born in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], to a tallow-maker.

Early in life, Franklin developed a love of reading. As he recalled in his autobiography, "From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the Pilgrim's Progress, my first collection was of John Bunyan's works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."

As a youth, Franklin was apprenticed to his older brother James, as a printer. Using several different pen names, Benjamin contributed many articles to Jame's newspaper. However, Benjamin felt his brother mistreated him and in 1723, he ran away to Philadelphia, then the largest city in British North America.

In Philadelphia, Franklin began publishing the ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', which was the longest lived and most successful of colonial newspapers. He published his ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' for twenty-five years; it was filled with witty sayings penned by Franklin and others. Franklin often borrowed material and rewrote it as he saw fit.

Franklin became one of Philadelphia's leading citizens, founding a sanitation department, a fire brigade, the American Philosophical Society, and the first circulating library in British North America.

Franklin invented bi-focal lenses, a heat efficient stove, and the swivel chair. By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from news papering, and devoted most of his time to his scientific pursuits. His famous experiment with a kite won him membership in the prestigious Royal Society, but it also had a practical effect. It also led to Franklin’s invention of the lighting rod, and a contract for to outfit all the ships of the Royal Navy with lighting rods. By 1750, Franklin was easily the most famous of the King’s North American subjects.

Until the end of the American Revolution, he was easily the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founders]], early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

He served as the Continental Congress [[ambassador]] to [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against England. Benjamin Franklin was a prolific inventor; he invented the [[Franklin Stove]], the swivel chair, and [[bifocals]]. He also discovered the existence of [[electricity]], using an experiment involving a key attached to the tail of a kite being flown in a [[lightning]] storm. Benjamin Franklin was considered by many to be a truly a great American, and is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while Alexander Hamilton appears on the $10 bill.

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. Unfortunately he was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary electricity, move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge — creating a minor headache for scientists and engineers.

Franklin came to Deism at an early age. In his autobiography Franklin sought to let the reader "...know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc'd the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

Despite identifying himself as a deist, Franklin also believed that Christianity had positive effects on colonial society. After one his friend George Whitefield's sermons he recalled that “It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”

While Franklin recognized the benefits of Christianity, he remained very much a deist. In his autobiography, he recalled an instance when he opened his home to Whitefield: "My answer was, "You know my house; if you can make shift with its scanty accommodations, you will be most heartily welcome." He reply'd, that if I made that kind offer for Christ's sake, I should not miss of a reward. And I returned, "Don't let me be mistaken; it was not for Christ's sake, but for your sake." One of our common acquaintance jocosely remark'd, that, knowing it to be the custom of the saints, when they received any favour, to shift the burden of the obligation from off their own shoulders, and place it in heaven, I had contriv'd to fix it on earth."

However, Franklin realized the value of Christianity in public life, making the following motion for prayers to be said at the [[Constitutional Convention]]:<ref>http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html</ref>

:Mr. President [George Washington] ... I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

:I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Benjamin Franklin guided the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania, which was chartered as nonsectarian. According to the University, it was "a new type of learning institution, that unlike other American Colonial colleges, would not focus on education for the clergy, but would instead prepare students for lives of business and public service. The proposed program of study would become the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum."[http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php] In his 1749 ''Proposals relating to the education of youth in Pensilvania[sic],'' he outlines an essentially secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of History; Franklin, however, makes a point of saying that
:History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, antient and modern.

Before the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor to [[England]]. He was a member of the [[Lunar Society]] based in [[Birmingham]], creators of the Industrial Revolution, and also the [[Hellfire Club]] of Sir Francis Dashwood.

Franklin believed strongly in the importance of political freedom to the American experiment. As such, he remarked, "those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both," a stern warning applicable especially in today's world.

In a letter dated March 9, 1790, a little more than a month before his death, Franklin outlined his beliefs to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale:

:Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."

This quote reflects Franklin’s leanings toward deism. In the first paragraph, Franklin professes a belief in a god, but does not name that deity. In the second paragraph, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but is uncertain as to if he is the son of God. While he recognizes the value of Christ’s moral teachings, he thinks his teachings may have been corrupted over time.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:political people]]

==Benjamin Franklin's Writings Online==
:[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
:[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
:[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.