Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?

2009-07-21T03:19:11Z

Gosweden:

I just thought it was strange that He would care whether or not we go to church and worship Him when He is all powerful. Surely He would just be happy with us living good lives and not require us to worship and believe in Him in order to get in to heaven when we die.

:I find this question mostly offensive. The Devil believes in God but no way will Heaven accept the Devil. 'He is all powerful' think about it. God could have destroyed us all for our sins and started over but God loves us more than we know. We are alive thanks to God, we are here for God. It has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with love. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:59, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:If we suppose ourselves to know the mechanisms of God, then why would it be still God? The answer is, we can't, and we probably are not supposed to know how God works. [[User:FrankK|FrankK]] 19:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I am not trying to be offensive here. I am not questioning whether or not God is worthy of our praise and worship, the magnificence of His creation clearly demonstrates that He is. I merely have trouble with the idea that God would demand from us recognition of His great deeds, why would he be looking for anything in return from us when we were created, except for us to go about life in a just way. Why would God need our worship and praise when He knows Himself that He is right and doesn't need us to convince Him? His actions are selfless and out of love for us. Claiming that He cares about whether we worship Him or not implies that He acts not out of love for us but out of a love of being praised.
[[Category:Debates]]
:That is blasphemy. The Bible is clear that we are to praise the Lord for his love and creation. Do not presume to know the mind of God, for that is hubris. [[User:ISharma|ISharma]] 14:52, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

The argument "God could have destroyed us but he didn't so we should love him" is like saying "My husband could have beaten me but he doesn't so I should love him"
In other words, your love for god is based on threats that he may destroy you.
And the statement made by FranK confirms why Creationism is not scientific. {{unsigned|YesisLol}}
:Wrong, your argument is baseless. God, didn't destroy us but could have IS NOT love him or fear him. It is God loves, in the natural order of the world, you love somebody when they love you back. It is a bond of love, a reciprocating love. Unless an atheist, then you just love yourself and your supposed brilliant mind. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

whoa there are extraordinarily generous athiests who give to a level some christians could not conceive to say they only love temselves is a horrible thing to say.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

Debate:Women in the Military?

2009-07-21T03:13:44Z

Gosweden: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

== No ==

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
*We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:: We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces] simply has superior training. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm not a sociologist or a feminist or an anti-feminist, so none of what I say comes from being bigoted or from any discriminatory agenda. I was Marine Corps infantry (all male) for two combat deployments and "support"(mixed gender, no direct combat) for a surprise of a third deployment. I would have to say across the board that women should not be allowed in direct combat roles like 03, 08, etc.
When I was in the Pogg unit I couldn't believe how what percentage of women were sitting out of training ops on crutches, etc. In line units, probably 15% of us (males) got injured in some way shape or form during pre-deployment workups. I'd say out of about 250 Marines, 6 got injured to the point where they were considered non-deployable. Everyone else sucked it up and went anyway. Back in the support unit where the training was considerably (laughably) easier, twenty percent of the females were injured. These injuries were mostly due to stress fractures and heat injuries (caused by women not drinking enough water because they were too embarrassed to urinate). Another 50% (that makes 70% of our total) made themselves non-deployable by either getting pregnant or complaining of migraines or some other ailment. Now I will allow that there is a percentage of women on the high end of the scale who surpass some of the men even at the middle in physical training. But on the average, the top quintile of females in the military are even with the bottom quintile of males as far as physical training is concerned.
I'm not against women of any fitness level being in any support unit, but that's not for me. Some people can do it, but I can't. The macho mentality which I think is so necessary to create the aggression and violence of action could be held by some women in infantry roles, but it would diminish that mentality in many of the males, whether that's right or wrong. Male infantrymen are not, for the most part, enlightened social engineers. Their agenda is fighting and killing and taking care of each other. In the support unit I was surprised and disgusted at how much of my time was spent trying to stop people from sleeping with each other in a combat zone. Male-female bonds were causing stress, resentment of leadership, favoritism, and fights between the males and sometimes even the females. Sex in combat zones is strictly forbidden (even if your spouse is there) because it diminishes cohesion. But the command always turned a blind eye because it was a messy issue and no one wanted to "get involved." And that's in the units that I think can be mixed gender and succeed. I couldn't even imagine what would happen in a line unit where cohesion is perhaps the most important thing a unit can possess.

Speaking as a female, I would have to day no. I completely believe that there is a small percentage of women out there who are "tough enough" to do the job admirably, I have met some. That being said however, look at the case of the current hostile situation, the people we are up against tend to be extremists concerning about what a woman's role is. If a male is captured they will tortured certainly for a time, and probably killed. The type of torture used however, and the time kept alive to continue that torture would be far worse on any female. That, of coarse, is a worse case idea, but any woman one frontline would be aware of it, as well as her male counter parts. It has been seen in many cases now that the guys will go out of their way to keep a female from that sort of harm. Women might as well paint targets on themselves, because this currant enmy is particularly against women in what they deem as a "mans" place. If you are fighting a sexist enemy, then it makes no difference if everybody on our side sees Her as just "one of the guy's" I suppose you could make the argument that women should be able to choose for themselves whether they are up to that challenge, and so long as they can hang with the guys, they should be allowed but personally I believe the "super women" (I say that respectfully, for I count some as my friends) should hang back to help protect the badly need support positions and give the whole issue a rest.

== Yes ==
(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy.
It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action.
I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission.
I feel I've babbled enough for now. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Yes''': One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

Women should be in. No straight guy would ever shoot a real hot chick across the battlefield, providing attractive female combatants with a sort of impenetrable armor. --[[User:SashaT|SashaT]] 17:06, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

All im gonna say is my sister can beat the crap out of most men and has lugged my ass out of the woods flowing a hiking injury, some women shouldnt be in combat just as some men shouldnt -craig101

man i know several chicks who can run faster longer they're stronger and good shots so yeah they should be in the military.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

== I don't care, but... ==
Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there.
[[User:Barnetto|Barnetto]] 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:
*researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. [http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html Iowa University]

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets just remember Joan of Arc. Yeah, women should be in the military and we need to stop being so sexist.[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:03, 31 June 2007

To tell you the truth I don't care who is in the military as long as they get the job done. But if they can't, man or woman, they should not be there.

Fact is women are in the military. They just aren't specifically put in positions where they might see offensive combat. However, without front lines and with terrorists hitting support troops (supply, medical), women are in units more likely to be attacked. I've served with many of them and I've never seen a task they could not accomplish. My opinion is about the draft (selective service) If women are going to be in the military (and even run for president) they should be registered for the draft just like every man between 18 and 45. We haven't used it in 40 years and I'd guess 60% of all 18 year old males would be 'unfit' if we did, but women should be ''registered'' just like men. It'll never happen though because theres no political benefit to it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 19:33, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2009-07-21T02:59:54Z

Gosweden: /* 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==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

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]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

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)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

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)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Absolutely not==

This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.

My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.

Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.

You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?

Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.

Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.

-MaxV
::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING! You think He's going to tolerate sin? As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on. I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off. Thank you. -- Mike H.

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2009-07-21T02:52:51Z

Gosweden:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was [[Jesus]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Good one - ''touché''. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did. Jesus is God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT) (See details on talk page - [[User:Human|Human]])
::::When did Jesus talk about the Asteroid? Or overpopulation, and natural resource protection for that matter? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:30, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Jesus, the Creator of the universe, is quite capable of stopping an asteroid. He stopped a storm just by telling it to stop. For the others, see the existing answers on the talk page, and continue this there if you want to continue it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:31, 12 February 2008 (EST)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Knowledge of God. 2) Terrorism 3) Communism 4) genocide 5) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the [[rules]])--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

(I moved a lengthy discussion to the talk page under " Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.", with the permission of the two principal discussers [[User:Human|Human]] 17:25, 13 May 2007 (EDT))
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

I got one, stupid people get rid of them and everthing meshes like clockwork.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?

2009-07-21T02:49:28Z

Gosweden: /* How is this a scientific debate? */

{{debate}}

Why not? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

God's works are always questioned because He gave us a free will to do with what we wish and to question and believe, to love and to hate, to agree and disagree. We question because we are human and we are human because we questioned.--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 22:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that God's works are questioned because our perception of God is so limited. The majority of people view God as a benevolent, loving, but stearn creator/magician/father figure. If that is what God is all about then we constantly have to wonder why God's creation contains pain, suffering and death. We also have to stuff our beliefs about how the world works into a creator/created way of thinking. Other cultures have had complex mythologies that essentially show God as having many faces; some good, some bad, some loving, some destroying, etc. The Old Testament God was more like that type of being. Maybe if our God were bigger, we might realize that the important questions aren't concerning God's works at all but our own. Like the Buddha we would simply set it aside and concentrate our efforts on living the right life in the here and now. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

== How is this a scientific debate? ==

Science has not shown any proofs for existence of god. Also science questions every thing. From perspective of science, there is no god. Man made god in man's image (at least one group)--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Within or without? Half full or half empty? There is no such thing as science having a perspective. Only individuals are in a position to gain a perspective. The proof of the existence of God is the created universe. There are those that would prefer that God never existed so that their own works won't be questioned. Of course they may be wrong. Whether you believe you evolved from a pool of slime or are an intelligently created being will be your own choice. The real question is whether you will ever recognize it when the answer to this question has been given to you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

simple you can't test them, when your god decides to hand over some blood then I will believe.
([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

== Not everyone believes in God, in the same way as you ==

and whether you agree with them or not, it's a pretty good reason [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 14:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Religion Essays]]

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2009-07-21T02:40:31Z

Gosweden: /* Yes ... */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the ''philosophy'' of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government ''type'' which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about ''unless'' it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy." --[[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]]

I disagree. In small communities the "Democracy" that tugs at people is possible because the group is small and everyone's say can be heard. As communities grow large, this has generally become impossible. The founders of the US of A (as I understand it), based America's government on the Greek forum, where everyone was heard by the attending community. Whether fortunate or unfortunate, when a group grows large is becomes efficient for sections of the large group to elect or appoint a spokesperson to represent the section in the public forum. In the US of A, this sectionizing is done mainly by geography. Each state (a stand alone member of the US of A) is represented by 2 Senators. And in the other House of Congress, representation is done by population, again with a geographical distribution (mostly). Can these, or some part of these, ideas work anywhere? Well, yes BUT the underlying assumptions need to be agreed to by those who engage in the forum. The idea that everyone should have an equal say is not present in Iraq. In fact, it is strongly objected to by persons who wield weapons to make themselves heard and to quell other voices. The second assumption that worked in the US of A was elected representation. This assumption is also against Iraq traditions. There, the interests of a group have traditionally been a matter of blood or other means of selection rather than by vote. A brief answer to "Is democracy possible in Iraq" could be stated, "yes, but it will need many indidivudals to tolerate new ideas traditionally unsupported." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on [[Turkey]].

==='''Yes ...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked, not being interested in where your daughter, sister or mom is sleeping tonight, being able to deny the presence of God, drinking alcohol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets, not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking your children out of your houses when they become 18, not knowing your neighbors after living thirty years door to door with them, having disposable marriages, watching two men kissing each other on the street ''and'' yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is ''no''.

But if democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits (by not doing all of above and some others), being able to question the ruling authority, women's right of voting, equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others' lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is ''yes''.

And if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first fifty years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

-I think that there are already democracies in The Middle East, but I think some people question that because they see a democracy more as upholding American values, but the Arabs don't seem to want that

If they want it they will take it. ([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic (in that we "vote", but that's it -- more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely on a series of events. As well, there are forms of democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran which does in fact hold elections (yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist (under the correct circumstance -- which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now -- because of a lack of acknowledgment to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.
: Rather than represent our own interests, we elect a person who, we hope, will represent our interests for us. Such people are (generally) experienced in the area. Iran would be a democracy except that it has a sort of monarchy of religious overseers who (apparently) can override any portion of the democractic process. For example the religious overseers decared a number of candiates who were going to be voted on by the populace as "unqualified". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''No ...'''===

Democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
Democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. The man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
The forefathers knew about a democracy. That is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you ... to an extent. After a while, democracy alone begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elected legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy (no tyrants, self government ...) without some of the problems (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. That said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning—the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master-minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it) ...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==='''You can install a muffler or battery but not a Democracy'''===
'''Comment'''
:Democracy is one of those words that is mostly misused and misunderstood .
Lets look at the definition:
“Demos: mean common people
“kratos”: means rule
so democracy means “ruled by people”
There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,
As a matter of fact though most Islamic countries are fascist they are better examples of pure democracies than the U.S..

Now let me try to explain that. If the vast majority of a population desire their government to impose sharia law and they believe that infidels should be killed or converted there is nothing undemocratic about that, though the infidel might disagree.

The U.S. is not a democracy.
It is a hybrid “constitutional representative federal republic”
This is far from a pure democracy. The U.S. is governed by a constitution of laws not of people.
Early in the history of the U.S. it’s founders agreed on a set of rules that would limit not only the power and discretion of the government ( it’s self and it’s law) but also it’s people and it’s subsequent elected leaders. Why did they do this? Well they knew that absolute power is corrupting and oppressive in any one entities hands. So, they basically spread it out .
Constitutional ( we are ruled by law )
Federation (we are made up of smaller sovereign countries or “states” )
Republic ( we are ruled by consent )
Representative ( we vote for our leaders )

: Good gosh. We govern ourselves because we create the laws we live under and we remove the laws we don't like. The Constitituion is a framework (and again, we could and have modified it) the laws fit within. We are not the effect of what has gone before, but use it as a guideline toward changes that will be to our benefit. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I love the heading. Most, if not all, of the world's democracies were not "installed" by outsiders (although many, many hated regimes were), but were worked towards and fought for by the populations of the countries involved. PS, I tried installing Democracy 2.1, but it crashed my hard drive and printer. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[Human]]. Democracy can be inspired, but not installed. Ironically, it sometimes emerges in what could from a narrow [[nationalist]] standpoint be considered the defeat of an existing democracy (see [[India]]). [[User:Amyz]] 14:28, May 18, 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Yes, Indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest Muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly Islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''No ...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

==='''No ...'''===

You Said That "We came to our democratic system through our own will and process." However that is not true, Thomas Jefferson once said "I would not want any man to judge me, unless he believed that someday god would judge him" The founding of this nation was based on christain principles. Our "democracy" was a system spoken of in the book of jeremiah: "The lord is our lawgiver, the lord is our judge and the lord is our king" The reason why democracy is not working in Iraq is because they are trying to create a government under muslim principles, contrary to the very foundation upon wich america was formed, the word of god. Freedom only works if you have responsibility. the only way that "democracy" will work, in any country is if the people in that country turn their hearts to god, the creator.

==='''Not for long ...'''===
Oh, a representative government can be set up easily enough. The problem is that in a democracy, people will vote for who they want to rule them. And in a highly devout Muslim country, what the people want to rule them is a group of very religious Muslims who are completely and openly dedicated to upholding the principles of the Koran. That is, oppressive theocrats who want woman to be covered and banned from education, think infidels should be killed on sight and have the long-term objective of taking over the world with an Islamic Superstate. Oh, its a democracy all right - its a government that carries out the will of the people. And if they people (Or at least the men, as women would either be forbidden from voting or prevented by intimidation and violence) ''want'' to live under the type of government that considers the Koran to be the unalterable defining document of law... well, thats exactly what they will vote in. - BornAgainBrit

Erk...Okay, first, learn to spellcheck. It's not that hard. Actually, while I'm here, why don't I do just that.
Now, spelling errors aside, you're doing some interesting things here. What's wrong with upholding the principles of the Koran? I could just as easily say all hardcore Christians should be banned from public office because they uphold the principles of the Bible. But aside from that, you're rather interestingly blending 'devout Muslim' with 'rabid extremist.' Sorry, but they're not quite the same. Why should a country dedicated to the Koran (and not, for instance, modern Islam) have any problem with women being educated or walking around unveiled? The Prophet himself married a woman 15 years his senior who ran a well-to-do trading company. My point here is that you're taking the extremists from a religious group and extrapolating back to the religion - it's both ignorant, incorrect and impolite. - Reasonless

Ironically, one of the most democratic middle eastern countries was Iran. Under the oppressive shahs and imperialist Great Britain, the Iranian people demanded for a parliament and rights to all people. They even elected Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh who was primarily secular and supported the highest levels of religious freedom and freedom of speech under this Iranian's time in power. The only issues people had with him was that he believed so much in political freedom (he did, after all, allow the communist Tudeh party operate and his National Front was in a coalition with Tudeh) and did not support Great Britain's corrupt Anglo-Iranian Oil Company exploiting their natural resources for little Iranian profit. The only time Iran was not democratic was when America and Great Britain overthrew the lawfully elected Mossadegh, so Mohammad Reza Shah could rule Iran with an iron fist, and when the fundamentalists came along,they were so dissolutioned with western society, they decided to become an insular country. It sucks, but i can see why they'd do it. I'd certainly be pissed if some random country took advantage of my homeland.

Debate:Creationist

2009-06-26T23:25:19Z

Gosweden: /* Accusations against creationism and creationists */

The word "creationist" is often used to express bigotry, which itself is a reason to discourage use of it. But the term is also misleading because:

* it implies that either one is or is not a creationist, when in fact many lack a clearcut opinion
* it implies that anyone who believes in creation is a creationist, when in fact the term doesn't mean that
* it implies that it is a belief system rather than a logical and scientific conclusion

I suggest that Conservapedia stop using the term except where absolutely necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Perhaps we should refer to them as cdesign proponentsists. [[User:SusanIvanova|SusanIvanova]] 22:24, 26 December 2007 (EST)

:Hm, is this based on TerryH's quasi-essay? (I admit I didn't have a chance yet to read it completely, but I read over it.) My main questions are these:
:*Considering that "creationist" means (quoting Terry's definition) "one believing, and willing to defend the belief, that [[God]] created the world, life on it, and mankind", I don't see that much room for anything aside from "Yes" or "No". Maybe Old Earth Creationists might fall into a sort of grey zone (did I mention that I'm no expert in this field?)...?
:*What else does it mean? Or are you pointing at the other creation accounts here?
:*Since it's mildly related, what is your view of evolution? Is it logic and science (however flawed) or a pure belief system? If the former, we should also eliminate "evolutionist" references since the problem can be mirrored 1:1, I think. If the latter, it would identify Conservapedia as a Creationist site since we'd take an official position on the issue ("Creationism is science, Evolutionism isn't."). I'm really not trying to open this particular can of worms here, but your comment made me think, and I think this would be a good time to clarify the implications of your suggestion, if just to the new guy. *handwave* :P
:*And about stopping to use it... what should we replace it with? I believe people use "Creationist" because it is widely understood both by [people who believe that God created the world and all life on it, now formerly known as Creationists] and those who suggest that evolution is the key. I haven't looked at the articles here, but I assume it would be somewhat tedious and clumsy to replace occurrances of "Creationist" with a definition that has the same information value.
:Then again, it's possible that I'm just misreading things. I hope my questions show where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to argue; I just wish to understand your position better so I can stick to the new rule. And please keep in mind that I haven't fully read Terry's post due to time constraints (and my next online phase will most likely fall into the night-time restriction zone, so I couldn't post my thoughts until in 12 hours or so). I think I noticed "Creation apologist" as a suggested alternative, but I think that term needs more explanation than "Creationist" does.
:I hope this comes over the way I intended it to do: As a request for clarification since this is a complex issue, and not as a stubborn newbie barking up the wrong tree :P --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:35, 26 December 2007 (EST)

: "''it implies that either one is or is not a creationist, when in fact many lack a clearcut opinion''": That comment could be made about almost any label that you attach to people, including "liberal" and "conservative".
: "''it implies that anyone who believes in creation is a creationist, when in fact the term doesn't mean that''": I believe that it does mean that. What do you think it means?
: "''it implies that it is a belief system rather than a logical and scientific conclusion''": That's the objection that evolutionists have with the word "evolutionist", but the point is that it ''is'' a belief, and it's ''not'' really scientific (just as evolution is not scientific) because it is dealing with unique past events that are outside the realm of scientific investigation.
: I'm quite happy with the term, and it's used quite readily by, umm, ''creationists''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Prior discussion ==

Conservapedia uses the term "creationist" in 129 (now 128) entries, but the term seems to be imprecise and often used by adversaries in a pejorative manner. It is sometimes by bigots or vandals.

Are there any precise and valid uses of this term? I'm curious about its etymology, as the dictionary says the term did not even exist until 1880.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 26 December 2007 (EST)

While the etymology would I'm sure be interesting, there is a simpler road to take. Namely, an "-ist" is a person who subscribes to an "-ism" (philosophy) or engages in some kind of practice. Thus a creationist is simply one who holds that creation is an element of reality. It doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and the identification needn't carry any connotative baggage. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)

: First of all, thanks for your correction to my mistake in [[dot product]].

You are welcome! [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 08:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)

: To your point above, however, the term "creationist" would ostensibly apply to anyone who accepts a creation. But that is not how the term is used, which makes it confusing. Also, it is often used in a pejorative manner as an expression of bigotry, making it unsuitable for enlightened discourse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)

::I believe that the term is correct, but others simply use it while voicing criticism (no matter how immature).
::(As an aside: While I'm not an expert, it appears to me as if a partial shift to a more precise term has already happened: I saw the term "Creation Scientist" more often lately, but that (obviously) only applies to, you know, scientists and not the average John Doe. It also doesn't solve the potential confusion about "a creation".)
::Fact is that the opposition has to call them ''something''. "Creationism" and "Creationist" seem to be the most widely recognized terms, officially used (for example) by the Northwest Creation Network.
::Speaking from personal experience, nobody in these parts of the world thinks that a "Creationist" believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief some other] story. However, if you want to be precise, then those articles could be edited to specify "Young Earth Creationist" (or "Old Earth Creationist") where applicable. It would be more precise, but on this site, it would strike me as somewhat redundant. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:47, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I can fully appreciate your concern over the pejorative connotation that the term has acquired since it is looked on with disdain by many in the intelligentsia. I guess I prefer to continue to use the term in its denotative sense, and on the occasions when it is used in a pejorative connotation, show that that usage is unreasonable and uncharitable. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 08:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)

<nowiki>========= Start of long post by TerryH =========</nowiki>

Anyone who has been on Conservapedia for very long, will rapidly learn that I, at least as much as any other member of CP's administration, am the sort of thinker to whom the term ''creationist'' might apply. That makes me one of the best-qualified people to start this discussion. (In addition to which, I happened to see it first when [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]] published this topic to the debate page.)

== Introduction ==
What is a creationist? Very simple: it is one believing, and willing to defend the belief, that [[God]] created the world, life on it, and mankind. This position is called ''creationism''.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Creationism Creationism] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>

A creationist is almost always an ''apologist''. An apologist does not say that he's ''sorry'' for saying something (though he might be sorry that he sometimes ''has to'' say some things that are going to push people out of their comfort zones). An apologist ''defends'' something, and is prepared to show that that something is true and correct. So perhaps we can define another term: ''creation apologist'', for one who defends the notion that the universe and mankind had (and still have) a Creator.

You might also be familiar with the term ''creation scientist.'' That can be one who presupposes that the world was in fact created, and sets out to show:

#How, in detail, the world and mankind were created, and
#Why the world today looks the way it does.

Or it can be one simply willing to challenge the opposite presupposition: that the world and mankind ''had no'' Creator, and that the world and life on it "just happened" to "come together" after a series of accidents, without thought or purpose.

== What a creationist is not ==
A creationist is not necessarily a holder to the scientific paradigm of [[intelligent design]]. All that an ID scientist sees is that the world looks very much like a thing planned and built, not a thing that "got here" by accident. An ID thinker never troubles himself to discover or even to think about ''who did the planning and the building.'' A creationist would think about things like that, but not an ID man. And while an intelligent design for the world and life might be ''part'' of any workable model of creation, identifying the Creator is not part of intelligent-design theory.

Nor is a creationist a shaman or other practitioner of "magic" or any "secret art" or "black art." We make no secret of what we presuppose--nor do we pretend to have any secret knowledge.

Although "identifying the Creator is not part of intelligent-design theory", but when you know there is someone behind the creation, it is perfectly logical to ID the creator as the next step. Just like when we see a good picture, painting or an art, or eat a good dish, or see a good job done, it is natural for us to right away ask who did/made this, and then probably give the person a compliment.

That's why it is entirely different between to think there is someone who created the world and to think the world is "self existence", like what the humanists claimed. This "self existence" idea is really ridiculous - nothing in the world can self exists, they all got to be made/come from somewhere. Even those humanists who claimed this, they are born from their mothers' bodies. Here is a challenge: find something in the world that is "self existence" and explain how this thing "self exists".

They want to exclude the creator is one thing, but saying something can "self exists" is way too much.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:38, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Presuppositions of creationism ==
Every school of thought begins with certain presuppositions--things having no explanation beyond themselves. In middle-school science classes, one might hear the term "fundamental property of nature." The formal term is ''axiom'', from the [[Greek]] ''axios'' meaning a worthy thing.

So what do we consider worthy to start with and regard as settled?

# One [[God]] exists, and He created the universe and ordained its laws.
# He also left a Record with us--that thing we call the [[Bible]]--which is only the All-time Best-selling Work of literature in the history of printing!
# That Record is ''historic'' and deserves to be treated as such.

The historicity of the Bible perhaps deserves its own essay. But we can regard the Bible as reliably historic on these grounds:

# It contains the direct testimony of and about One Who stated directly and repeatedly that He ''was'' God.
# That Person is the Best-attested Figure in all of human history.
# The Bible makes certain definite predictions about this Person--predictions made centuries before the fact, predictions that all came true without exception.
# The chances of those predictions "just happening" to be accurate, even five hundred years or more in advance, happen to be slimmer than one in 10157. That's one in ten thousand quinquagintillion. That's one in ten times the thirty-sixth power of a myriad. That is almost the ''square'' of the total number of [[electrons]] in the [[universe]].

Now if the Bible is right about Someone like That, then It's right about everything else It says. ''Including'' anything It has to say about the origins of the world and of life.

== But, but, but...! ==
"But the Bible says that the world is not but six thousand years old, give or take a hundred, and we all know that the world is much older than that!" Do we? Who said it was? The hard part of trying to construct a model of origins without a historical record (or at least without one you're willing to accept) is trying to predict what conditions ''were'' in the beginning. Of course, people tend to do the simplest thing--they assume that the ''same'' conditions that obtain today have ''always'' obtained throughout the history of the world. And that assumption simply is not safe.

And even if it were, it leads to some tremendous contradictions. For example:

#The [[moon]] is receding from the earth so fast that if the earth were half as old as I have heard some people claim it to be, the moon would be touching the earth.
#The magnetic field of the earth is weakening so fast, that a scant ten thousand years ago, it would have been strong enough to rip the earth apart.
#The oceans are accumulating so much salt that--well, let's just say that six or seven thousand years ago, the oceans wouldn't have had any salt at all in them.

"But what about radioactive meterial? Half-lives? Daughter nuclides? Huh? Huh?"

What about [[radiometric dating]], indeed? Well, did any of you hear about a little episode in 1996, in which a geologist named Steven A. Austin took samples from the cooled lava dome at Mount Saint Helens and sent them in to a radiometric dating laboratory? Of course he didn't tell them where he got the rocks. Now how old do you think those rocks were? Ten years old, right? After all, Mount Saint Helens blew its top in 1986. Well, guess how old that lab thought the rocks were? Half a million years old, or even two point eight million!

:First off, the rocks would have been older than the actual eruption. The lava that coalesced into the new rock formations existed prior to the actual eruption. Secondly, the lab attempted to use a K-Ar dating method which cannot be used to date samples younger than 2 million years. Using K-Ar dating to date these rocks would be like using a high powered telescope to look for your keys. Additionally, the samples that Austin sent to be dated were not purified properly beforehand. Ultimately, there were all sorts of reasons for anomalous dates to appear, none of which are an indictment of radiometric dating. {{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:: Dating methods work on when the lava solidifies into rock. In that sense, the dating was valid. Why can't K-Ar dating be used to date samples younger than 2 million years? And how do you know if they are younger than 2 million years unless you date them? Where's your evidence that Austin didn't prepare the samples correctly? If there's "all sorts of reasons for anomalous dates to appear", why is the method given any credibility? Isn't it supposed to be, umm, ''reliable''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:46, 27 December 2007 (EST)

If any hospital lab had made a comparable mistake, it would have been shut down for its pains. So how did that lab make that mistake? Simple--they presupposed that no daughter nuclide would be present in the formation of igneous rock. And yet they found a clear excess of radiogenic [[argon]], the decay product of the radioactive [[potassium]] in the rock. And it wasn't a matter of "tolerances," either--they reported five different ages for the rock, and those ages were further apart than the sums of their rated tolerances. ''They couldn't even figure out that the rocks all came from the same source, and that source was a recent volcanic eruption!''

Nor was this the first such mistake. Back in 1993, miners in the Crinum Coal Mine in [[Australia]] unearthed a fossil tree buried in [[basalt]]. Andrew Snelling and his team sent a sample of the wood to one lab, and samples of the surrounding rock to two different labs. And what do you suppose the labs told them? They got back one apparent age for the tree (about 10,000 years) and apparent ages for the rocks that were orders-of-magnitude higher--as in, in the millions of years.

:Polystrate fossils are a very well understood phenomenon having first been described in the 1860s. Only young earth proponents still consider this any sort of problem for Geology. {{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:: YECs don't consider it a problem for ''geology''. They consider it a problem for ''long-age interpretations''. And being aware of it doesn't explain it. How do mainstream geologists explain polystrate fossils? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Now don't you think that somebody's got some explaining to do? What kind of stupid mistake was this? Not stupid--merely ignorant and prejudiced by their worldview--and making a bunch of wrong assumptions about radioactive decay.

To find out the definitive source of those wrong assumptions--and to try to build a new model of radiometric dating--Snelling, Austin, and other scientists (including Larry Vardiman and Russell Humphreys) formed the RATE Group--for '''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth. They have issued their first papers by now, and the results have shocked the establishment. They found an excessive rate of helium diffusion from zircon crystals--so fast that you wonder why any helium remains after "all this time." They found pleochroic haloes--the kind of finding you get with a short half-life--in minerals containing elements with ''long'' half lives. They found that the [[Grand Canyon]] is a lot "younger" than ever supposed. And what it all adds up to--is that the rate of radioactive decay ''has not'' remained constant since the birth of the earth, but was ''greatly accelerated'' at least once in earth history--maybe during Creation Week, or maybe--just maybe--in the Year of the Flood, and in such a way to have ''triggered'' the Flood.

"But all life is basically alike!" No, it isn't. Prokaryotic and eukaryotic life are orders-of-magnitude different from one another.

"But speciation happens all the time!" Sure, it does--but only within definitely prescribed kinds. You don't get a new species that is a cross between a wolf and a big cat--nor could you produce a viable pup/kitten hybrid by crossing any species of wolf (the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf ''Canis lupus'') with any species of big cat.

:Evolutionary theory doesn't propose that one would be able to cross and dog and a cat. Cross-species mating is not a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. What the theory does propose is that through various selection processes a single species could split into two species which were incapable of breeding with each other, and this has been observed. {{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:: TerryH's point was that speciation only occurs within boundaries. He already agreed that speciation occurs, but he says that it only occurs within limits. Your answer doesn't argue otherwise. Dogs have "evolved"—into other dogs. Cats have "evolved"—into other cats. Dogs have not evolved into something that is not a dog, and cats have not evolved into something that is not a cat. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 27 December 2007 (EST)

"But didn't Miller and Urey show how amino acids probably formed in the early atmospheric conditions?" No, they didn't. First, they set up a gas mixture that might work, with no good reason to suppose that those were the gases that were ever the way earth's atmosphere was put together. Second, they got a racemic mix of amino acids--not the uniformly left-handed mix that we observe in all of life today.

:The purpose of the Miller Urey experiment was not to perfectly replicate the early atmosphere, but to show in principal that the building blocks of life could be generated abiotically. Clearly, there is still the issue of creating a non-racemic mixture, but some studies show that aqueous clay can cause the left handed amino acids to be preferentially generated. {{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:: I'm not sure that TerryH is correct that they had "no good reason" to select those gases. I believe that they were trying to replicate the conditions that they believe existed or could have existed, although later evidence shows that they got it wrong. But essentially, they showed that the proper building blocks of life could ''not'' be generated, partly because it was a racemic mixture, and partly because they had to artificially trap out the amino acids before they got destroyed again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Accusations against creationism and creationists ==
"You never publish in peer-reviewed journals." And ''our'' journals aren't peer-reviewed? And would you be willing to accept one of "our" papers in one of "your" journals? Not if the way a certain former curator of the Smithsonian was treated is any indication. And anyway, a RATE group leader ''was'' invited to present his abstract at a recent geology meeting, and the selection process for those abstracts ''was'' peer reviewed. So you see, we ''can'' publish in peer-reviewed journals--so long as the peers doing the reviewing are willing to be reasonable, rather than act on prejudice.

"You guys simply look for ways to make the data fit your beliefs!" And evolutionists don't?

"You're praying for ignorance!" No, we're not. If anything, we're blowing the lid off a major scientific scandal. Here's a hint: it didn't start with Piltdown Man.

"Religion and science don't mix!" And anti-religion and science ''do'' mix?

:"Buzz-word alert! What is 'anti-religion'?" It is anything that takes the place of religion, and certainly acts like religion, while arguing, often scathingly, against it. Secular humanism is the prime example today.

"You guys give up too easily. We'll find out how [[abiogenesis]] happened, and won't you look silly!" Heh, heh. Oh, we'll wait, all right--but we're more likely to see the Second Coming of Christ than any proof that life could ever arise from non-life. If abiogenesis ever happened in the past, then it ought to happen today, and in the wild, not under controlled and completely artificial conditions.

:"But it's different today!" Ah, ha! I thought you held to [[uniformitarianism]], that says that how it is today has always been that way! I guess conditions change, and radically so, when it suits you, no?

As you can see, we've heard it all before, and we continue to hear it--and a lot worse than this, but I see no reason to bore everybody with all the ugly [[ad hominem]] details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 26 December 2007 (EST)

your primary shot against evolution is how life can come from non-life. but isn't that notion you seem so ready to ridicule the center piece of your own argument? how can you be so hypocritical well you probably learned it wathing "fair and balanced" FOX news. ([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
<nowiki>========= End of TerryH's post =========</nowiki>

=="..."==
...wouldn't it have been a tad less overkill to paste that into an essay and just link to it in this discussion? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 15:06, 26 December 2007 (EST)

:I might do exactly that, if I have time the rest of this day and tomorrow.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2009-06-26T23:02:54Z

Gosweden: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.
:*My scientific and theological statements each stand on their own. Please respond to science with science and theology with theology, rather than dismissing my statements. Otherwise, there is no debate.
:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:*Your accusation of dishonesty is misplaced. Positions taken by the APA or WHO are not related to the science; those organizations are politicized (see [[politicized science]]). What matters is the research.
:*Additionally, your reference to a biological basis is incorrect, as scientists have yet to find one - despite media campaigns about a "[[gay gene]]", the research points '''away''' from genetics.
:*As to "environment", if you mean the way children are brought up in their families, then this proves my point. If homosexuals are made, then homosexuals can be cured (although this is harder: see [[reparative therapy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Is ''Sin'' a mental illness? It does affect the mind. You can't seperate God from man. Man was created in His image and likeness. To go against the Creator and sin, you are writing checks to the Devil and his demons.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals...think about Oscar Wilde etc!
You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you,
Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! [[User:bealecr]] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Someone said it is "a development disorder which begins in early childhood". That is not true. They are confused with an actual psychological disorder called Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. Gender Identity Disorder is commonly first seen in childhood. Children who show these symptoms are sometime called tom boys or nancy boys. Those with GID are homosexual, but they are homosexuals who seek a relationship with a heterosexual. An example would be a natural born male who dresses in woman clothing who seekes a relationship with a heterosexual man. He feels he was born in the wrong body and he should be a female. Many crossdress and consider sex reassignment surgury.

just as much as heterosexuality-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:07, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it anyones fault that they like the color blue? Is it anyones fault they like coffee? Is it anyones fault that they're sexually attracted to animals, corpses, or little children? If that's the case, then bestiality, necrophilia, and child molestation aren't immoral either. I mean, you can't help that you want to partake in sexual intercourse with an animal or corpse or child, right? Moral and immoral are based on how you feel towards a matter. Thats great to know you don't think its immoral, just know you speak for yourself and your own feelings. I would say to leave morality out of this since obviously there will be different truths. In terms of feelings and most everything, truth is in the mind of the beholder. but back to mental illness, mental illness is a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior or all three. But the question with that is, changes their thinking feelings or behavior from what? normal? natural? who decides what is normal or natural? the answer to that is popular opinion. its not necessarily truth, its just an agreement amongst multiple people. So why did the majority of people decide that homosexuality was a mental illness (before 1973 when popular opinion changed) ? I guess that they looked around for answers instead of just deciding things based on feelings. Penis and anus, vagina and vagina, they cant reproduce. The survival of a species is based on its ability to survive and reproduce. If we didn't have the technology we have (such as artificial insemination) , and if everyone was homosexual, there would eventually be no more humans. I guess that people said it was a mental illness because they figured that the want of survival of ones' species is normal or natural. (i say we need both homosexual and heterosexual in order to limit the population so that theres enough recourses to go around so that the race of human can continue.) -nathan

The real mental disorder is in believing what Conservapedia writes of homosexuality. Not only is the information misrepresentative, it excludes the fact that while some cases are inflicted by psychosocial causes, homosexuality can sometimes be genetically predisposed and has been observed in many species of animals, but most famously sheep. Either way, homosexuals are still people too and discrimination and persecution is not the answer. There once was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. Gays may become the blacks of tomorrow.

Freud stated that religion is a psychosis. A mental illness. When someone with mental illness accuses someone else of having mental illness, is he informed or crazy? James101.

Being black is genetic, homosexuality on the other hand is behavior, thus a comparison of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, makes no sense-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

In some cases, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic.

:My following reply answers both this question and if homosexuality is a choice.
:No, it's just a sin. With what previous people have stated, mental illnesses dictate a person's actions. Only with medication and severe therapy are they able to overcome it.
:Homosexuals, whether someone thinks they are (choice) or they were actually melded into that state, they have will power. They can '''choose''' whether to act upon it or not. Summary: Homosexuality (attraction) is not a choice. Fake homosexuality (experimentation) is a choice. Homosexuals are not sinful (in this one sexual immorality sense) unless they act upon their attraction.
:Counterpoints/criticism encouraged on my above comments. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

yeah of course being gay is amental illness just like being left handed those revolting left handers how dare they go against the norm! and those people who can't curl their tongue in a tube why it sickens me just to look at them something is obviously wrong with them. and last the most disgusting of all those people who are immune to poison ivy eww can't believe they chose such sick lifestyles can you.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

==More Research Needed==

I dunno about this one. I know it's not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I'm definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
:Why would we need to fix something that does not need to be corrected? [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 22:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: That is the major point. Where is the problem? As far as we know, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Torquemada, Musolini, all the current African dictators, Somoza, Pinochet, all Chinese presidents or emperators, and so on (we may fill several pages), are/were not homosexual, however, just one of them made more crimes that all the homosexual men together. We need to focus.....
::Are we talking about homosexuality as an attraction or acting upon homosexuality? God doesn't hate His children, He hates their sins. Fellow God-believers...am I right? o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:46, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>
Hellooooooooooo??
Just because it is not "Normal" ~ doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed".
Some of history's greats are also not "normal".
We have a Taiwanese basketball star in Houston who is 7 feet tall.
He doesn't need to be "fixed".
Some more "not normal" greats in history are:
Michaelangelo, Alexander The Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ira Gershwin, Sir Elton John, Daniel of the Bible, ............. Oh, I could go on and on.

:Daniel of the Bible was not a homosexual; he knew what God's law was and knew it was an abomination. Your rants have been noted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Basically... ==
People hate homosexuality because it's different. It's as normal as heterosexuality is, but because it's not the norm, people hate it. It's that simple. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:You should refine your comment and say, "ultra Conservative Christians" instead of "people". o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 17:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

::Opposition to homosexuality is based on religious and scientific principles. We oppose race prejudice and discrimination without hating racists, simply because we believe that each person should be "judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrhetoric.com%2Fspeeches%2Fmlkihaveadream.htm&ei=m72zSYymApaitgeFibjEBw&usg=AFQjCNEju4lodXxTPiTbb_rbD1h-PisYiA&sig2=IdyzsshL9YRXCVqS2fcDwg I have a dream] - [[Martin Luther King]]</ref> Doctors try to cure [[mental illness]] out of concern for their patients' well-being. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2009-06-26T22:41:52Z

Gosweden: /* No */

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes!''' The pharmacist has no right to interfere in someone else's life. I may find vanity morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I should block your right to purchase Crest Whitestrips.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]]

A pharmacist is meant to be a PROFESSIONAL and has a duty to his client to ensure the drug provided is proper treatment and has no bad interactions with other drugs prescribed and no safety concerns with a patients other conditions. They are a additional support and check on the Doctor. If the drug is legal and properly prescribed then the Pharmacist has a professional responsibility to provide it. If they can make choices on personal moral grounds then they could decide that an alcoholic should not get treatment, a women could be prevented from contraceptives and that sort of thing.

*'''Yes'''. If Christian pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and keep their jobs, then Buddhist soldiers can refuse to fire at people and keep their jobs. Jehovah's Witness surgeons can refuse to perform a blood transfusion, and keep their jobs. You know what your job is going to entail, if you're not prepared to do it, don't take that job. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 21:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
*'''yes''': I think it's important that pharmacists who have moral objections be allowed to do what they can to avoid something they object to, but if it comes down to it, the doctor prescribed a medication based on his or her best understanding of the situation. I have read stories of Pharmacists refusing to give women Birth Control, but they do not know *why* the woman needed it. there are medical conditions that require birth control, including some that are very serious like debilitating crams and blood loss. Conditions which have nothing to do with a woman having sex or not, or wanting a child or not. If arrangements can be made, say another pharmacist, they should get to say "you do it". but if no alternative exists, their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

*'''Yes''': I know this debate has been pretty quiet for a while, but I wanted to chime in anyway. I can understand why a good Christian pharmacist would be reluctant to dispense things like plan B, but I believe that someone who chooses to become a pharmacist should be prepared to dispense all drugs that their employer desires them to that are presented by patients with legitimate scripts. If a pharmacist has a moral objection to Plan B (or condoms, or anything else,) they should find a pharmacy that chooses not to stock those items. I do not think that employers should be required to hire people who cannot fulfill the duties of their position -- and even though religious belief is a protected class, it's okay (at least under US and California law) to discriminate against protected classes if their membership in that protected class interferes with their ability to do what you are hiring them for. You don't have to hire a Muslim to be your butcher if your facility processes pigs, nor do you have to hire a Hindu to be your butcher if your facility processes cows. You don't have to hire a Scientologist to be a neurologist in your hospital if his religious belief causes him to believe all migraines are psychosomatic, nor do you have to hire a devout Christian Scientist if you work at a blood bank. You '''can''' do any of these things if you desire -- but legally requiring an employer to do so infringes on their rights. (If I ran a pharmacy, I would not force my pharmacists to fill any scripts they weren't comfortable with, though. I just think employers should have the option to do so.) [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm very uneasy with that line of argument, Bugler. It sounds good in theory, but in practice, it leads to problems. Should a Muslim pharmacist have the right to deny prescriptions based on religious faith, for instance? What about an orthodox Jewish pharmacist who notes that certain medications technically violate the laws of Kosher? And again, should I as an employer be required to employ those whose conscience prevents them from doing the job I want done? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::But wasn't that the whole principle behind "render unto Caesar...", that you can have dual obligations? Anyway, it's the ''doctor'' who is supposed to be ensuring a medication is appropriate for a patient, and aside from interaction-checks, a pharmacist is not supposed to second-guess the decisions of doctors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Going back to Terry's original point, a pharmacist could not be sued for dispensing a prescribed drug (Viagra in your example) to a patient, even if the patient died as a result of a side-effect of that drug, unless the pharmacist was negligent (that is to say, unless the pharmacist dispensed his viagra script at the same time he dispensed a nitrate to the guy, and he died as a result of an interaction between the two that the pharmacist should have picked up on but did not.) Giving Viagra to a really old guy might have been a bad call on the behalf of the old man's doctor, and it's possible the doctor could be sued for malpractice over it -- but the pharmacist could not be sued for it. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Pharmacists cannot be forced to fill any prescription, period. Nor can any person be forced to do anything that violates their freedom of conscience. Like consciensuous objectors that aren't required to serve in a position that might require them to kill another person. Or medical personel put into a position that requires them to participate in the killing of an unborn baby or the euthanasia (assisted suicide) of another person. That's if you live in the United States of America of course.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:12, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Correct. On the other hand, if I am the owner of the pharmacy, I should not be required to ''employ'' a person who cannot or will not do the job I need done. That's the issue here. While the pharmacist is free to choose to follow or not follow their conscience, Big Government has no right to compel employers to hire or retain that pharmacist. If someone joins the Army voluntarily with the understanding that the job will involve fighting, and then refuses to fight when the time comes on the grounds that it violates their conscience, you'd better believe there are consequences for that...consequences a lot more serious than simply losing a job. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::::No. Saying you can't work here as a Pharmacist because of your religious beliefs isn't correct. When 'the job to be done' is infanticide or euthanasia then nobody can 'force' you to commit or assist in either action. Without fear of consequences or retribution. If someone denies you employment because of your convictions not to destroy another persons life then you better believe then they will suffer a serious consequence for their actions. Also, individuals can be legally excempted from military service due to their moral or religious convictions if they can prove their beliefs are longstanding ones. Refusing to serve due to a political stance however is not legal. The filling of a legally precribed drug isn't something you can 'force' a Pharmicist to do. It is legal for you to go to another pharmacy that does carry drugs that end life. What is being suggested here is that you can 'force' someone to do something that is against their will. Do you want to live in a society like that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:00, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Employment in most cases is "at will", unless there's an underlying contract. This means that the employee has the right to resign, and the the employer has the right to fire, "at will", provided that no laws are being broken (you can't fire based on race, gender, etc.). The owner of a pharmacy has every right to screen potential employees based on their willingness to fill any legal, valid prescription presented - that's the business after all, and someone who is not able or willing to help the company operate legally does not have to be hired. A pharmacist does not have to be forced to fill a legal prescription they are morally opposed to, but they cannot force a drugstore to hire them, either. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 06:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law. You cannot willfully exclude an otherwise qualified candidate for a position due to their religious convictions. Just like a Muslim that won't handle pork products at their job in a grocery store but will be able to handle just about every other task. Some people assume that you can now begin to exclude people from society because of their religious beliefs. This is incorrect. Unless you live under the tyranny of any number of totalitarian nations that still are able to exist.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::The key to the employment rules is that religion may not be used to discriminate, ''provided the candidate is otherwise able to perform the required duties of the job''. For example, it's not discrimination to turn down a candidate who won't work on a Saturday or Sunday sabbath, when the position requires working weekend hours. If a drugstore only staffs one pharmacist on duty at a time, and by policy they fill all valid prescriptions, then it's not discrimination to refuse to hire someone who refuses to fill certain prescriptions based n their religious views - if there's no one else on site to do it, the operation of the business and customer relationships are disrupted. No one is trying to exclude religious people from society, but people do not have a right to be paid for not performing the required duties of a job. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::''Actually, in the USA, if the employer violates anti-discrimatory law by not accepting an employee due to their religious convictions, then they may be forced to hire them anyway. Because that is the law.
''

::::::::The question here is not whether big-government interventionism in areas not permitted to it by the Constitution exists; of course it does. Attempting to dictate to an employer that they must hire a less-fit candidate (one who cannot or will not perform all of the tasks associated with the position) over a more fit candidate (one who can and will do the same) is pure liberal big-government interventionism. The question is whether it ''should'' exist. I say that, manifestly, it should not. Moreover, as Dinsdale points out, there are (happily) limits on this form of interventionism. The owner of a non-Kosher deli cannot be compelled to convert his entire deli to a Kosher one so that an orthodox Jew can work there; nor can he be compelled to hire that same orthodox Jew when the latter indicates that he will not handle the merchandise because it is non-Kosher.

::::::::A pharmacist who refuses to fill certain lawful prescriptions is less fit for the job than one who does not refuse to fill those prescriptions. Any government policy forcing an employer to hire him would simply be Affirmative Action in a pretty poor disguise.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::A pharmacist is perfectly within his rights to refuse to fill a prescription based on a moral objection. However, the employer is also perfectly within his rights to fire such an employee. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So now we are reframing the question to should the employer, of a pharmacist, be forced to make their employee, the pharmacist, fill any prescription they object to? I have a question whether an Orthodox Jew would wish to seek employment at a non-Kosher deli? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't unless someone was trying to 'force' them. You can't exclude any person due to there observance of religious days. This isn't the application of reverse discrimination or the filling of quotas, a.k.a. affirmative action. This is merely the protection of a citizens rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The equal application under the law to anyone irregardless of their beliefs. If an employee tells their employer they can't work on such days that are religiously observed by them and then the employer tells them they must work on those days or they will be fired, quess what? The employee may sue the employer. Some people don't like having to accomodate another person's religious practices. That's why there have to be laws to protect our rights to practice our beliefs without being persecuted by our employer, public servants, and the rest of society. Which is one of the main reasons so many people either want to come to the United States and why so many Americans are thankful for being so blessed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

"Irrespective" or "regardless," please. "Irregardless" isn't a word.

You're quite correct: an Orthodox Jew would be foolish to seek employment in a non-Kosher deli, because working there without violating the tenets of his faith would cause him serious problems. Likewise, a pharmacist who is morally opposed to filling legal prescriptions (regardless of what those specific prescriptions may be) would be foolish to seek employment in a pharmacy that fills those prescriptions.

A pharmacist who finds the substances dispensed by a given pharmacy morally objectionable ''should not seek employment at that pharmacy.'' He should instead seek out an employer whose morals are compatible with his own. When I was in college, I refused to work in a number of establishments that sold lottery tickets, because I consider gambling to be sinful. Had I instead chosen to accept employment at such an establishment, would I have been justified in complaining when they expected me to sell lottery tickets?

Keep in mind also that such Big Government intervention works both ways--not just when the employee's views are in line with our own. If the government stepped in to force a pro-life pharmacy owner to continue to employ a pharmacist who was giving referrals to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that his faith compelled him to be up-front with them about their options, would you applaud? Or would you say that the employer should be able to terminate such an employee? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:Was that a ad hominem attack? I found plenty of definitions for those words. Just because your etymological dictionary doesn't have a word won't negate the fact that it is a word. Diachronic linguistics has shown that words are changing constantly. I like these words and will continue to use them whenever necessary. Or any other nonstandard words, terms, or phrases that I feel will convey the appropriate message.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Pointing out to someone that they are making a common grammatical error is hardly an ad hominem attack. Mr. Schlafly himself points out such errors all the time. The fact that language is dynamic does not change the fact that there are generally-agreed upon standards. You are, of course, perfectly free to flout those standards if you so choose; however, the message that you are likely to convey in so doing is a lack of facility with standard English. Someone who insists on using "ain't" on a resume, on the grounds that it's a word and he has a right to use it, is still likely to get his job application tossed in the circular file in short order. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would say what I've been saying all along throughout this debate. The key to this that seems to have blown past just about everyone here is the 'being forced' part. It has nothing to do with "Big Government" and instead has everything to do with individual rights. Evidently this is something not taught in the school systems these days. It has to do with inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Anybody ever heard of those?

::Yes. Moreover, I can enumerate them. Allow me to point out that, contrary to the beliefs of a great many people today, those inalienable rights do ''not'' include the "right to employment." As an aside, I truly wish that all of those who feel the need to talk about their "Constitutional rights" would take the time to become educated on precisely what those rights are; the level of ignorance in this country concerning the supreme law of the land is shocking.

:You cannot be forced to do anything, and I mean nobody can force you to do anything that's against your own conscience. Because it is against the law! It is against the law because it violates your inumerated rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

::As a matter of fact, it does not. Could you please show me where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the right to "not do anything that's against your own conscience" is spelled out? In fact, there are many things that you can be forced to do, regardless of whether they're "against your own conscience." Someone who decides that taxes are morally wrong and therefore refuses to pay them is quite likely to go to jail for doing so. Someone whose conscience tells them that a suspected rapist who gets out on a technicality deserves to die, and shoots said rapist, is still going to face severe legal consequences. During time of war, those whose conscience leads them to give material aid and comfort to the enemy can face consequences up to and including execution as a result.

:The Pharmacist that has worked in a position for years or a couple decades cannot then be forced to then dispense a drug that violates their conscience. I would applaud if only some people would get this. The employee that has worked in a position for years or decades shouldn't have to be 'forced' or coerced to do anything they deem to be wrong just because of some political wind change. Nothin to do with big government, or affirmative action, but just plain 'ol common sense basic rights necessary for a civil society that affords equal protections under the law of the land.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::So you don't believe the employer has the basic right to decide who he will or will not employ. Thank you for clarifying that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::Let's say, Roo, that I am a doctor. In fact, let's make it even more specific. Let's say I'm Terry Schiavo's doctor. I, as her doctor, listen to her husband who says she doesn't want to be on a feeding tube, and so I take out the tube. Then, let's say the FL legislature passed a law stating she has to be put back on the feeding tube. But I, as her doctor, believe it is wrong to go against what I believe her wishes are. Would you agree with my decision not to reinsert her feeding tube. I mean, I've been a doctor for years, and I can't be forced to do something I believe is wrong just because of some political wind change. Would you applaud my decision to stand firm on my beliefs, or would you expect me to follow the law and expect me to carry out the duties of my job? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To do no harm. Isn't that one of the oaths doctors take? The right of Terry Schiavo to live will supplant any doctor's lack ethics. The instance of Terry Schiavo that anybody with a shred of compassion could see was there wasn't a family consensus to end her life. That it can't be seen that the differance between forcing someone to kill or forcing someone not to kill is probably a moral dilema that some cannot fathom. It only proves that you can shop around for a lawyer, or a judge, or even a doctor who will euthanize anybody for any reason and is therefore a mute point. Again I'll say this one more time then that you cannot force an individual to do something that violates their conscience. Whether they are a murderer or not is still up to them. By the way, the laws created by men sometimes violate those rights. Remember that everything Hitler did he made it legal (in German law) first.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life? Interesting. Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat. What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam? And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No one should be forced to do something they find objectionable but they're going to find slim pickings in the job market if they can't suck it up close their eyes and hand the bottle away. GoSweden

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2009-05-22T01:08:50Z

Gosweden: /* No */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

:No offense, but your point on the translation shows that you know very little on the issues of the debate. I encourage you to keep studying, but realize that we have the original language that it came in... the Greek and Hebrew. Now if you're talking about preservation, that's a miracle in and of itself. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare. And the earliest ones that we have correlate very nicely to the later ones we have. Did you know that there is a whole field of science called ''textual criticism'' that deals with problems in the text and figuring out what the original might have been? For example, when a scribe was copying down something, and had been doing that all day, he would have been tired and might have accidentally looked at the word on the previous line and wrote that word in instead of the one he was supposed to.
:Even I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the manuscripts ''that we have'', and thousands of them. However, that is a deceiving statistic because most of them have to do with either spelling a word differently or simply words put in a different order. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English, so it changes nothing about meaning. In case you're wondering, I am studying ancient koine greek, and know this. I'm not just repeating someone else's opinion. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:32, 4 December 2007 (EST)

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]
:[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] - Matthew and John part of the 12? [[Matthew the Apostle]] is only ''traditionally'' [[Matthew the Evangelist]] - modern biblical scholarship seems to disagree on this point. [[John]] wasn't an Apostle at all. Please check your Bible before citing it, otherwise mistakes may occur. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Oops. Well, I was rushed when I made that edit. It doesn't really change the bible's reliability, though. --[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 14:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

yes it is, because it has been most successful of all the religions in the world, claiming more beleivers then any other (that is what ultimatley determines how good (is that grammatically correct?) a religion is)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 02:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

ah. well i dont really think a religion is better than another.. a religion was first created to help one survey and percieve the world and to provide support. without it, m,any people would be lost. but i do not feel that there is an "optmila" or "true" religion...that part is just brinawash. =X [[User:KuR0K4R4|KuR0K4R4]]

why do we fight over whose god is better?? and does it really matter in the end?

No. No religion is better than any other. They are all false, and therefore totally invalid.

I don't like any of them

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I guess we all will. ALL of us. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:24, 4 December 2007 (EST)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

I just saved a ton of money by switching to Geico...
That sounds ridiculously off topic, but when confronted with such a hideously slanted question.
I understand the website's desire to set itself apart from WIKI, but asking such a narrow-minded question,
isn't going to win anyone over, in fact, if I didn't have a profound curiousity in this site, I'd already
be long gone...--[[User:Markos88|Markos88]] 21:03, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bandwagon==
Notice that only one religion has been picked as superior instead of asking which religion is superior and why? The subject is expected to attack such a unfair premise since it has targeted the one that seems to be a popular target for many of the commentors. This is the bandwagon propaganda technique.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?

2009-05-22T00:56:33Z

Gosweden: /* No */

{{Debate}}
=Yes=

The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In addition, there are countless verses in the Qur'an permitting violence against infidels:
-"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." (Koran 3:151); this verse enjoins Muslims to violence against Christians specifically, as Mohammed incorrectly alleged that believers join 'Companions' with Allah.
-"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them" (9:5). This verse, for which Osama bin Laden has thanked Allah, exhorts true Muslims to kill the so - called 'infidels' (including Christians and Jews). It also abrogates countless verses from the Meccan era in the Koran that instructed Muslims to tolerate those of other beliefs.

:main·stream /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

By definition, you're completely wrong. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You confuse mainstream Islam with mainstream Muslims; although the vast majority of Mohammedans are likely peaceful, the Qur'an permits the violent conquest and subjugation of 'infidels'.

:: (Curses! Rusty beat me to it. But see what I would've written) - WHAT!? "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]). Dominant means the larger. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture. By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic. Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible. Thank you. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement. But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence. This is just a fact, OK? It's not PC, it's just ''true''. I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)

=No=
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence. Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels. You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, indonesian muslims are constantly killing Christians. [[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm]][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::constantly, really? Explain that to my christian aunt, uncle and 2 cousins who lived there for 3 years. I'm sure they'd love to hear how they were constantly threatened. I was there for a time as well and received nothing but excellent treatment from the locals. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::excellent treatment, really. Explain that to me as i too spent time there and received more than a few threats. Perhaps i misstated using the word "constantly" but muslims in indonesia clearly do persecute and kill Christians, and it is false to say that they dont, no matter what your relatives tell you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No. How many Western Muslim terrorists are there? (I mean those who have lived in Western nations their whole lives). It's environment, not religion, that causes violence. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:All of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676577.stm]. Look here to see all of the Western born muslim terrorists [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC69.htm]. Enjoy.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to claim that all/most of the followers of the second-largest religion in the world endorses violence.
The Arabic word ‘Islam’ has two meanings: to submit and PEACE
As It is wrong to make generalisations about for, example homosexuals or people of different backgrounds, it is also wrong to make such a wrong and strong accusation and generalisation that mainstream Muslims endorse violence.
There might be a very small outspoken minority but it does not mean that mainstream Muslims have the same beliefs

:I believe it was an Irish philosopher who said that "Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing." If mainstream Islam is doing nothing to stop the extremists when they supposedly don't believe in what those extremists are doing, it is nearly as bad as actively supporting them. But not quite. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 14:48, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Comment==
Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States.

The United States includes Republicans and Democrats, Timothy McVeigh and Martin Luther King, Unitarians and Seventh-Day Adventists, members of the Crips and members of Habitat for Humanity, vegetarians and gun lobbyists, the ACLU and Focus on the Family. America includes violence and America includes apple pie. I like to think apple pie is more mainstream.

Would you care to sum up "mainstream America" in a short, facile generalization? I wouldn't. And I know a lot more about America than I do about Islam.

Hey, I didn't know what Shi'ites and Sunnis were until five years ago. And I barely know them now. (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, but was he a "mainstream" Sunni? Quick, without looking it up: is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi'ite?)

I'm not sure how many of the pundits writing newspaper columns in English the topic can speak Arabic.

'''I''' for one sure don't know whether "mainstream Islam endorses violence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream Islam... how many people are Muslims? And how many of these people are radical? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion endorses violence. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does.

Mainstream American Muslims have condemned violence, but this is conveniently overlooked. Here is one example:

"Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
Thurs., July. 28, 2005
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.

In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/

I know repeat KNOW most Muslims are compassionate humane people (unlike many christians I know) the violent people make up about .1 % of the Muslim population. anyone who says otherwise are ignorant.