Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2010-01-13T05:44:57Z

Greenmeanie: Undo revision 744327 by Greenmeanie (Talk)

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a [[False religions|false religion]]? Is it a threat to Christianity?

== Oh yes! ==

Scientology is some science fiction writer wanting to be remembered. It is all made up.

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20

:"Not false as it's own religion?" What does that mean. Scientology conflicts with Christianity. They cannot both be true. So, if Christianity is true, this means Scientology must be false. It is a false religion - and beyond false, it is also dangerous as it distracts people from the truth and lures them from God. It is the duty of Christians to fight false religions. Just because they are small does not mean they can be tolerated. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

Scientology is no more of a threat to Christianity than Christianity is to Scientology. I'm sure the Scientologists view Christians as blasphemous and ridiculously ignorant, just as you do them. You can't just assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong. [User:Tegan]

No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power, nor is it possible to disprove. Just because a religion is not of Christian beliefs doesn't mean its false. If this were the case, that would make Judaism a false religion, because it doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God. I believe in God, and am a Christian. I say that to avoid being called an aethist, which I am not. Anyway, people are aloud to believe what they want (if it is within the legal boundaries of the nations law, i.e. human sacrifice religions are illegal) even if it is really crazy in others opinions. And how are they a threat to Christianity? Could someone explain that? --[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 19:58, 17 February 2008 (EST)

:"No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power." -- But Scientologists don't belive in any higher power. There is no god or supernatural entity in the mythology; there is no figure of moral authority or any entity responsible for creation. Xenu, the most prominent figure of evil, is a physically-existing non-supernatural being, an alien emperor. Thetans are not supernatural either, as Scientologists themselves claim their e-meters physically detect them. So "it can't be proven" doesn't apply here. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 15:12, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I believe that Scientology doesn't have a God. Nor something to worship (Except maybe Hubbard). So it can't be a false religion. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:32, 14 March 2009

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wind cannot be seen but it can be felt. All Scientologists left their religion to join. It is only harmful for those who are uneducated. Scientology is not just some little thing made up to help people. They are a terribly corrupt organization that charges you money to learn their doctrines and history. Everybody needs to learn the dark truth of Scientology. The only time a religion becomes harmful is when it teaches to hate. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:40, 14 March 2009
How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

Yes, clearly scientology is a false religion. #1 it is not a religion, it is more of a cult. What god do scientologists believe in? To my knowledge they do not believe in a god but more in a supernatural power, but not specifically a "god". Without a god it cannot be a religon.

Isn't god nothing more than a supernatural power beyond our full understanding? You don't need the traditional view of God for it to be a religion, just a shared set of spiritual and moral values. Anything negative that can be said about the basic belief structure of Scientology can really be applied to almost any religion today.

Ok, so Scientologies a cult based on these things apparently: They demand money from followers, they viciously attack people who speak negagtivley about their religion, are not allowed to take conventional meds, and are accused of illegal activties with accasionall convictions. How many evangelical pastors ''Italic text''don't demand money from people, and just from looking at this website its obvious that Christians attack anyone who is critical of theyre religion. And how many times have I heard about "the healing power of faith" on tv. And lets not forget the boy touching priests. Here's the definition of a cult: A minority group of people who share a set of beliefs.--[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 20:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is just as false and liberal as such devious religions as Satanism, Atheism, Arabism, and pro-choicism. Is it simply a coincedence that "''[[science]]''" (which is known to be false, because it opposes [[The Bible]]) appears in the word "'''''Scien'''tology''"? All Scientologists must be converted to Christianity NOW. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, man we could use some more bigotry to get the point across. [[The Bible]] could never be wrong, especially with all of our non-malevolent, non-manipulative human translators and monarchs who have had the good book warped into an evil artifact from a corrupt regime. I dare say Bush might be releasing a similar copy under the title, "'''Bush Universal Translation: '''With new words 'n evrytheeng!'''".[[User:Walkebb|Walkebb]]

It is all summed up in this one quote. "The best way to make money is to create your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Look, there is a difference between a religion ([[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Buddhism]], [[Unitarian Universalism]], etc.), and a MONEYMAKING SCAM. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally with the above. It is a cult and not a true religion. They are basically taking people away from the Gospel.

(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) LOL, how is it not a true religion? and i think that its worse that they are scamming people then that they are taking them away from your religion.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.

:(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) and although christianity is free, you are highly pressured to donate money.
:Can any religion or cult really be debunked?
:To the believer no. To a Christan it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.
:and although virtue is "its own reward" there are alot of people who are religious who are extremely rich (from religion)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== But Xenu is comming to Kill Us All!! ==



Beware All! Xenu, in his DC-10 spaceships shall come to end all Human Life, by taking us up in his spaceship, and dumping us in volcanoes. BEWARE!! --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

It is only as false as Christianity. --[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Didn't Hubbard himself admit he started it over a bar bet? [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 14:29, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

unconfirmed, although he might have. But he did say that starting a religion would be a good way to make money-~~

==Scientology is a False Religion==
Scientology is based on false ideas and was created by Science Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. His work is nonsense, and the money donated to the so-called "church" by its members is wasteful.[[User:Davison|Davison]] 23:34, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

It is a false religion simply for the fact of claiming copyright on the scriptures and filing lawsuits about it. If they would just stop the practice they probably would be able to be considered to be the same level of religion as Hinduism, Islam and the like. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 19:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2010-01-13T05:44:39Z

Greenmeanie:

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a [[False religions|false religion]]? Is it a threat to Christianity?

== Oh yes! ==

Scientology is some science fiction writer wanting to be remembered. It is all made up.

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20

:"Not false as it's own religion?" What does that mean. Scientology conflicts with Christianity. They cannot both be true. So, if Christianity is true, this means Scientology must be false. It is a false religion - and beyond false, it is also dangerous as it distracts people from the truth and lures them from God. It is the duty of Christians to fight false religions. Just because they are small does not mean they can be tolerated. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

Scientology is no more of a threat to Christianity than Christianity is to Scientology. I'm sure the Scientologists view Christians as blasphemous and ridiculously ignorant, just as you do them. You can't just assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong. [User:Tegan]

No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power, nor is it possible to disprove. Just because a religion is not of Christian beliefs doesn't mean its false. If this were the case, that would make Judaism a false religion, because it doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God. I believe in God, and am a Christian. I say that to avoid being called an aethist, which I am not. Anyway, people are aloud to believe what they want (if it is within the legal boundaries of the nations law, i.e. human sacrifice religions are illegal) even if it is really crazy in others opinions. And how are they a threat to Christianity? Could someone explain that? --[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 19:58, 17 February 2008 (EST)

:"No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power." -- But Scientologists don't belive in any higher power. There is no god or supernatural entity in the mythology; there is no figure of moral authority or any entity responsible for creation. Xenu, the most prominent figure of evil, is a physically-existing non-supernatural being, an alien emperor. Thetans are not supernatural either, as Scientologists themselves claim their e-meters physically detect them. So "it can't be proven" doesn't apply here. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 15:12, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I believe that Scientology doesn't have a God. Nor something to worship (Except maybe Hubbard). So it can't be a false religion. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:32, 14 March 2009

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wind cannot be seen but it can be felt. All Scientologists left their religion to join. It is only harmful for those who are uneducated. Scientology is not just some little thing made up to help people. They are a terribly corrupt organization that charges you money to learn their doctrines and history. Everybody needs to learn the dark truth of Scientology. The only time a religion becomes harmful is when it teaches to hate. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:40, 14 March 2009
How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

Yes, clearly scientology is a false religion. #1 it is not a religion, it is more of a cult. What god do scientologists believe in? To my knowledge they do not believe in a god but more in a supernatural power, but not specifically a "god". Without a god it cannot be a religon.

Isn't god nothing more than a supernatural power beyond our full understanding? You don't need the traditional view of God for it to be a religion, just a shared set of spiritual and moral values. Anything negative that can be said about the basic belief structure of Scientology can really be applied to almost any religion today.

Ok, so Scientologies a cult based on these things apparently: They demand money from followers, they viciously attack people who speak negagtivley about their religion, are not allowed to take conventional meds, and are accused of illegal activties with accasionall convictions. How many evangelical pastors ''Italic text''don't demand money from people, and just from looking at this website its obvious that Christians attack anyone who is critical of theyre religion. And how many times have I heard about "the healing power of faith" on tv. And lets not forget the boy touching priests. Here's the definition of a cult: A minority group of people who share a set of beliefs.--[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 20:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is just as false and liberal as such devious religions as Satanism, Atheism, Arabism, and pro-choicism. Is it simply a coincedence that "''[[science]]''" (which is known to be false, because it opposes [[The Bible]]) appears in the word "'''''Scien'''tology''"? All Scientologists must be converted to Christianity NOW. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, man we could use some more bigotry to get the point across. [[The Bible]] could never be wrong, especially with all of our non-malevolent, non-manipulative human translators and monarchs who have had the good book warped into an evil artifact from a corrupt regime. I dare say Bush might be releasing a similar copy under the title, "'''Bush Universal Translation: '''With new words 'n evrytheeng!'''".[[User:Walkebb|Walkebb]]

It is all summed up in this one quote. "The best way to make money is to create your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Look, there is a difference between a religion ([[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Buddhism]], [[Unitarian Universalism]], etc.), and a MONEYMAKING SCAM. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally with the above. It is a cult and not a true religion. They are basically taking people away from the Gospel.

(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) LOL, how is it not a true religion? and i think that its worse that they are scamming people then that they are taking them away from your religion.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.

:(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) and although christianity is free, you are highly pressured to donate money.
:Can any religion or cult really be debunked?
:To the believer no. To a Christan it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.
:and although virtue is "its own reward" there are alot of people who are religious who are extremely rich (from religion)

== But Xenu is comming to Kill Us All!! ==



Beware All! Xenu, in his DC-10 spaceships shall come to end all Human Life, by taking us up in his spaceship, and dumping us in volcanoes. BEWARE!! --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

It is only as false as Christianity. --[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Didn't Hubbard himself admit he started it over a bar bet? [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 14:29, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

unconfirmed, although he might have. But he did say that starting a religion would be a good way to make money-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==Scientology is a False Religion==
Scientology is based on false ideas and was created by Science Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. His work is nonsense, and the money donated to the so-called "church" by its members is wasteful.[[User:Davison|Davison]] 23:34, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

It is a false religion simply for the fact of claiming copyright on the scriptures and filing lawsuits about it. If they would just stop the practice they probably would be able to be considered to be the same level of religion as Hinduism, Islam and the like. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 19:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2010-01-13T05:44:05Z

Greenmeanie:

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2010-01-13T01:56:18Z

Greenmeanie:

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a [[False religions|false religion]]? Is it a threat to Christianity?

== Oh yes! ==

Scientology is some science fiction writer wanting to be remembered. It is all made up.

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20

:"Not false as it's own religion?" What does that mean. Scientology conflicts with Christianity. They cannot both be true. So, if Christianity is true, this means Scientology must be false. It is a false religion - and beyond false, it is also dangerous as it distracts people from the truth and lures them from God. It is the duty of Christians to fight false religions. Just because they are small does not mean they can be tolerated. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

Scientology is no more of a threat to Christianity than Christianity is to Scientology. I'm sure the Scientologists view Christians as blasphemous and ridiculously ignorant, just as you do them. You can't just assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong. [User:Tegan]

No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power, nor is it possible to disprove. Just because a religion is not of Christian beliefs doesn't mean its false. If this were the case, that would make Judaism a false religion, because it doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God. I believe in God, and am a Christian. I say that to avoid being called an aethist, which I am not. Anyway, people are aloud to believe what they want (if it is within the legal boundaries of the nations law, i.e. human sacrifice religions are illegal) even if it is really crazy in others opinions. And how are they a threat to Christianity? Could someone explain that? --[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 19:58, 17 February 2008 (EST)

:"No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power." -- But Scientologists don't belive in any higher power. There is no god or supernatural entity in the mythology; there is no figure of moral authority or any entity responsible for creation. Xenu, the most prominent figure of evil, is a physically-existing non-supernatural being, an alien emperor. Thetans are not supernatural either, as Scientologists themselves claim their e-meters physically detect them. So "it can't be proven" doesn't apply here. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 15:12, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I believe that Scientology doesn't have a God. Nor something to worship (Except maybe Hubbard). So it can't be a false religion. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:32, 14 March 2009

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wind cannot be seen but it can be felt. All Scientologists left their religion to join. It is only harmful for those who are uneducated. Scientology is not just some little thing made up to help people. They are a terribly corrupt organization that charges you money to learn their doctrines and history. Everybody needs to learn the dark truth of Scientology. The only time a religion becomes harmful is when it teaches to hate. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:40, 14 March 2009
How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

Yes, clearly scientology is a false religion. #1 it is not a religion, it is more of a cult. What god do scientologists believe in? To my knowledge they do not believe in a god but more in a supernatural power, but not specifically a "god". Without a god it cannot be a religon.

Isn't god nothing more than a supernatural power beyond our full understanding? You don't need the traditional view of God for it to be a religion, just a shared set of spiritual and moral values. Anything negative that can be said about the basic belief structure of Scientology can really be applied to almost any religion today.

Ok, so Scientologies a cult based on these things apparently: They demand money from followers, they viciously attack people who speak negagtivley about their religion, are not allowed to take conventional meds, and are accused of illegal activties with accasionall convictions. How many evangelical pastors ''Italic text''don't demand money from people, and just from looking at this website its obvious that Christians attack anyone who is critical of theyre religion. And how many times have I heard about "the healing power of faith" on tv. And lets not forget the boy touching priests. Here's the definition of a cult: A minority group of people who share a set of beliefs.--[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 20:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is just as false and liberal as such devious religions as Satanism, Atheism, Arabism, and pro-choicism. Is it simply a coincedence that "''[[science]]''" (which is known to be false, because it opposes [[The Bible]]) appears in the word "'''''Scien'''tology''"? All Scientologists must be converted to Christianity NOW. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, man we could use some more bigotry to get the point across. [[The Bible]] could never be wrong, especially with all of our non-malevolent, non-manipulative human translators and monarchs who have had the good book warped into an evil artifact from a corrupt regime. I dare say Bush might be releasing a similar copy under the title, "'''Bush Universal Translation: '''With new words 'n evrytheeng!'''".[[User:Walkebb|Walkebb]]

It is all summed up in this one quote. "The best way to make money is to create your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Look, there is a difference between a religion ([[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Buddhism]], [[Unitarian Universalism]], etc.), and a MONEYMAKING SCAM. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally with the above. It is a cult and not a true religion. They are basically taking people away from the Gospel.

(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) LOL, how is it not a true religion? and i think that its worse that they are scamming people then that they are taking them away from your religion.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.

:(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) and although christianity is free, you are highly pressured to donate money.
:Can any religion or cult really be debunked?
:To the believer no. To a Christan it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.
:and although virtue is "its own reward" there are alot of people who are religious who are extremely rich (from religion)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== But Xenu is comming to Kill Us All!! ==



Beware All! Xenu, in his DC-10 spaceships shall come to end all Human Life, by taking us up in his spaceship, and dumping us in volcanoes. BEWARE!! --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

It is only as false as Christianity. --[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Didn't Hubbard himself admit he started it over a bar bet? [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 14:29, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

No, but he did say that starting a religion would be a good way to make money-~~

==Scientology is a False Religion==
Scientology is based on false ideas and was created by Science Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. His work is nonsense, and the money donated to the so-called "church" by its members is wasteful.[[User:Davison|Davison]] 23:34, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

It is a false religion simply for the fact of claiming copyright on the scriptures and filing lawsuits about it. If they would just stop the practice they probably would be able to be considered to be the same level of religion as Hinduism, Islam and the like. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 19:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Bushism

2008-06-06T04:24:32Z

Greenmeanie:

'''Bushism''' is the term coined by [[liberals]] to refer to what they regard as incoherent, mispronounced, or idiotic words or phrases stated by [[George W. Bush]]. Bushisms include the mangling of the English language, atrocious violations of grammar rules, and other bastardizations.

The sheer existence of the term "Bushism" might be taken as a sign that Bush mangles the language significantly more (or more significantly) than other politicians. However, it is well known that all politicians (and public speakers in general) have occasional slips of the tongue. A possible explanation for the existence of the term is that George Bush, being the President of the United States, simply attracts more attention (both by supporters and detractors worldwide) than others.

Some examples:

*"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-5.html February 2001]</ref>
*"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html August 2004]</ref>
*"We had a chance to visit with Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad."<ref>White House transcript, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030909-3.html September 2003]</ref>
*"Is our children learning?"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601015_pf.html Washington Post]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

== Related articles ==

*[[Deceit]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]

[[Category: Liberal Bias]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Politics]]

Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated

2008-06-06T02:55:26Z

Greenmeanie:

==Yes==
I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much space as a long page of heated, footnoted, scholarly debate. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 14:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
:totally agree, although you should put enough edits in that it doesn't matter, but it is a bit mean (although they just block people for other reasons while debating)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
==No==

Time magazine

2008-06-06T02:40:04Z

Greenmeanie:

'''''Time''''' magazine is an American weekly publication that focuses on current events. It was founded by Henry Luce and Briton Hadden in 1923. The magazine is known for its annual "Person of the Year" designation giving credit to the person believed to have been the most newsworthy individual of that year. The series was called "Man of the Year" before 1999 when the name was changed because recipients can be male or female.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Magazines]]

Time magazine

2008-06-06T02:32:58Z

Greenmeanie:

'''''Time''''' magazine is an American weekly publication that focuses on current events and has a bias. It was founded by Henry Luce and Briton Hadden in 1923. The magazine is known for its annual "Person of the Year" designation giving credit to the person believed to have been the most newsworthy individual of that year. The series was called "Man of the Year" before 1999 when the name was changed because recipients can be male or female.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Magazines]]

Talk:Asia

2008-06-06T02:31:12Z

Greenmeanie:

Can someone get a map? Land area and population figures? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This is my favorite article ever.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:49, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== picture ==

the image of buddah is also very racist, please change the file name from asia.
:why is it racist
:it is an image of him
:dew on the night leaves--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:59, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

The picture isn't displaying. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Why does the picture not show the Middle East, the Middle East is considered part of Asia -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:yes, why?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-06T00:56:19Z

Greenmeanie:

dont say that it has a liberal bias, just because a conservative website said that they did (lots of websites that would be called liberal say fox news is biased, while its wiki says that it is "unbiased")-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 19:29, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
:im sorry apparently, saying that constituded a 3 day block -_-, because apperantly i didn't have the authorization to issue a command (although i could just be told instead of being blocked) and i suppose i should have said: i don't think that its right to say that it has a liberal bias, just because a conservative website said that they did (lots of websites that would be called liberal say fox news is biased, while its wiki says that it is "unbiased") (and if this is bad just post a response, instead of blocking me again)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 21:00, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::Greenmeanie, this magazine does have a liberal bias, and if needs be we will add in more references to that effect. If you disagree, talk to any of the sysops or ASchlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::it shouldn't be necessary to talk to the sysops, they should talk here about it being biased. and if time has a liberal bias, why doesn't the fox news article say that fox news article has a conservative bias, and a reference from a openly conservative source saying that it is anti-liberal, just means that its not biased toward conservativeness-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 09:39, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That implies that all magazines that aren't conservative are automatically considered to be liberal, and that is a obvious misnomer. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::im sorry if i implied that, (and is there a 3 revert rule or some conservapedia equivalent? cause all this reverting is annoying) but i don't think that i did imply that. and i agree that non conservative magazines aren't necessarily liberal, although i would like to see something that shows why this is biased, while fox news is "fair and balanced"-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
so sad, this page was just protected, and DanH didn't even say anything on the talk page about it, (which he should have) but i think that about wraps up the attempt to make this article less biased -_-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:41, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
: Greenmeanie, I rarely read ''Time'' and being an Aussie I don't see Fox, but it's not logical to argue that just because someone claims that Fox has a conservative bias therefore it is biased.
: Also, I seem to recall someone saying that Fox has both liberals and conservatives on it, which means that it tends to tell both sides of the story, which suggests that it's ''not'' biased.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
::can you name one news organization that DOESN'T have both liberals and conservatives on it? so that means that no magazines/newspapers/news channels have bias (time magazine included)?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Again, I'm not that familiar with America, but yes, I could name at least a couple of Australian ones that essentially don't have a conservative journalist/columnist/whatever on them. But perhaps I should modify what I said before a bit, because a single token conservative (for example) among a sea of liberals on staff would hardly make a news organisation unbiased. You'd have to have about 50/50 for there to be no bias. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::i don't think that time magazine has a higher democrat to republican ratio then fox has a republican to democrat ratio, and just wondering, does conservapedia have any liberal/democratic sysops? (can you tell me how many their are of each (liberal/conservative?)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I don't take much notice of American politics, and I wouldn't know for sure whether any of the sysops support the Democratic Party (although I suspect not). As for liberals more generally, Conservapedia has had a few, but they've ended up being demoted or banned for things they did (i.e. not simply because they were liberals) or left of their own accord. But if you're trying to make an argument that Conservapedia is not balanced, you're right: we don't claim to be. We claim to be trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood. As for ''Time'', one thing that I do know about it is that it has taken a very pro-evolutionary line, which is hardly balanced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Whether or not Time has a liberal/conservative bias is one thing (of which I have no concern) but just because it reports on evolution is not to say its not balanced scientifically. It reports on current affairs and some of those current affairs may be about evolution. Are you suggesting that anytime, in any publication, that says something about evolution of 'old earth' that it should also say that it may not be true? It would take a lot of magazine space to put both sides of the story. Dont they have other religious magazines for that purpose? Time, New Scientist, SA, what have you, all express the accepted scientific posistion (which is '''not''' YEC or creation). That doesnt make it unbalanced.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I didn't say that it "reports on" evolution, but that it ''promotes'' it. No, I'm not saying that every time any publication says "something" about evolution that it should also say that it may not be true. But it's hardly fair if it ''never'' says it, is it? And what do "religious magazines" have to do with a ''scientific'' model? And are you ''seriously'' saying that ''only'' the "accepted" scientific position should be reported on, and that competing views should never be covered? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Time is trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood. How often are competing views covered and treated equally on CP? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Is it really trying to be accurate? I suppose in their minds they are, but when they continually repeat error that's been pointed out to them[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3760/86/], can you really argue that?
::: As for Conservapedia, you will see many of our articles (e.g. [[dinosaur]]) covers ''both'' the evolutionary and creationary views, unlike Wikipedia and most of the secular media.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::So errors that have been pointed out on CP are not continually repeated but corrected each time? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ummmm... next question? Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::and you will also see that many articles don't present full views of both sides(e.g. [[Theory of evolution]], [[Atheism]], [[George W. Bush]]) and are biased, while the majority of wikipedia articles both sides of the story (and their really is much more scientific evidence for evolution then creationism, that is why there isn't really any criticism on the evolution page , scientifically)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 20:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-06T00:42:31Z

Greenmeanie:

dont say that it has a liberal bias, just because a conservative website said that they did (lots of websites that would be called liberal say fox news is biased, while its wiki says that it is "unbiased")-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 19:29, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
:im sorry apparently, saying that constituded a 3 day block -_-, because apperantly i didn't have the authorization to issue a command (although i could just be told instead of being blocked) and i suppose i should have said: i don't think that its right to say that it has a liberal bias, just because a conservative website said that they did (lots of websites that would be called liberal say fox news is biased, while its wiki says that it is "unbiased") (and if this is bad just post a response, instead of blocking me again)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 21:00, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::Greenmeanie, this magazine does have a liberal bias, and if needs be we will add in more references to that effect. If you disagree, talk to any of the sysops or ASchlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::it shouldn't be necessary to talk to the sysops, they should talk here about it being biased. and if time has a liberal bias, why doesn't the fox news article say that fox news article has a conservative bias, and a reference from a openly conservative source saying that it is anti-liberal, just means that its not biased toward conservativeness-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 09:39, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That implies that all magazines that aren't conservative are automatically considered to be liberal, and that is a obvious misnomer. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::im sorry if i implied that, (and is there a 3 revert rule or some conservapedia equivalent? cause all this reverting is annoying) but i don't think that i did imply that. and i agree that non conservative magazines aren't necessarily liberal, although i would like to see something that shows why this is biased, while fox news is "fair and balanced"-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
so sad, this page was just protected, and DanH didn't even say anything on the talk page about it, (which he should have) but i think that about wraps up the attempt to make this article less biased -_-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:41, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
: Greenmeanie, I rarely read ''Time'' and being an Aussie I don't see Fox, but it's not logical to argue that just because someone claims that Fox has a conservative bias therefore it is biased.
: Also, I seem to recall someone saying that Fox has both liberals and conservatives on it, which means that it tends to tell both sides of the story, which suggests that it's ''not'' biased.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
::can you name one news organization that DOESN'T have both liberals and conservatives on it? so that means that no magazines/newspapers/news channels have bias (time magazine included)?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Again, I'm not that familiar with America, but yes, I could name at least a couple of Australian ones that essentially don't have a conservative journalist/columnist/whatever on them. But perhaps I should modify what I said before a bit, because a single token conservative (for example) among a sea of liberals on staff would hardly make a news organisation unbiased. You'd have to have about 50/50 for there to be no bias. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::i don't think that time magazine has a higher democrat to republican ratio then fox has a republican to democrat ratio, and just wondering, does conservapedia have any liberal/democratic sysops? (can you tell me how many their are of each (liberal/conservative?)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I don't take much notice of American politics, and I wouldn't know for sure whether any of the sysops support the Democratic Party (although I suspect not). As for liberals more generally, Conservapedia has had a few, but they've ended up being demoted or banned for things they did (i.e. not simply because they were liberals) or left of their own accord. But if you're trying to make an argument that Conservapedia is not balanced, you're right: we don't claim to be. We claim to be trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood. As for ''Time'', one thing that I do know about it is that it has taken a very pro-evolutionary line, which is hardly balanced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Whether or not Time has a liberal/conservative bias is one thing (of which I have no concern) but just because it reports on evolution is not to say its not balanced scientifically. It reports on current affairs and some of those current affairs may be about evolution. Are you suggesting that anytime, in any publication, that says something about evolution of 'old earth' that it should also say that it may not be true? It would take a lot of magazine space to put both sides of the story. Dont they have other religious magazines for that purpose? Time, New Scientist, SA, what have you, all express the accepted scientific posistion (which is '''not''' YEC or creation). That doesnt make it unbalanced.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I didn't say that it "reports on" evolution, but that it ''promotes'' it. No, I'm not saying that every time any publication says "something" about evolution that it should also say that it may not be true. But it's hardly fair if it ''never'' says it, is it? And what do "religious magazines" have to do with a ''scientific'' model? And are you ''seriously'' saying that ''only'' the "accepted" scientific position should be reported on, and that competing views should never be covered? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Time is trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood. How often are competing views covered and treated equally on CP? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Is it really trying to be accurate? I suppose in their minds they are, but when they continually repeat error that's been pointed out to them[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3760/86/], can you really argue that?
::: As for Conservapedia, you will see many of our articles (e.g. [[dinosaur]]) covers ''both'' the evolutionary and creationary views, unlike Wikipedia and most of the secular media.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::So errors that have been pointed out on CP are not continually repeated but corrected each time? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ummmm... next question? Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::and you will also see that many articles don't present full views of both sides(e.g. [[Theory of evolution]], [[Atheism]], [[George W. Bush]]) and are biased-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 20:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Water fluoridation

2008-06-05T05:23:51Z

Greenmeanie:

'''Water fluoridation''' is the practice of putting [[Fluorine]] compounds in drinking water, supposedly to protect against [[Tooth decay]].

==Opposition to water fluoridation==
Many opponents of water fluoridation point to studies showing that the fluorine compounds used are neurotoxic<ref>[http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/ Toxic Chemicals In Your Water]</ref>,
may be ineffective at preventing tooth decay<ref>[http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION]</ref>
and comprises involuntary medical experimentation upon an unsuspecting public<ref>[http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation]</ref>.
The [[John Birch Society]] claimed for years that water fluoridation was a [[Communism|communist]] [[conspiracy|plot]], drawing the mockery of the media<ref>[http://www.jbs.org/node/4440 Colgate — China's Largest Toothpaste Supplier — Says Toxin Laced Product Is "Counterfeit"]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Weapon

2008-06-05T05:19:29Z

Greenmeanie:

A '''weapon''' is an instrument of attack or defense, such as a [[firearm]] or [[knife]].

[[category:Weapons]]

Talk:Video games

2008-06-05T04:56:42Z

Greenmeanie:

Alright... The source given at the end of the first paragraph is, honestly, useless. It doesn't prove any claim made in the paragraph, let alone the last sentence, and some of the stuff given there sounds absolutely ludicrious. 124 incidents of violence in 10 minutes? Unless you're counting every punch as an incident, that's incredibly high...

Anyway. Under normal circumstances I'd simply delete the reference and replace it with a citation needed tag, but given that I'm coming fresh of a banning for misinterpreting instructions, I leave it to you to decide whether or not to remove a source that really adds nothing to the article. Cheers. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Alright. Should nobody post a response to this in the next... Ehh, few hours, I'm going to replace that source with a fact tag. Reason: Source is irrelevant to that section of the article. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

==Final Fantasy==
Oh dang. I just noticed the what the previous edits said about the series. It's about purging evil in a make believe world! Narnia is almost the same. (both have magic/occult themes!)

I've been playing the series for a while, what homosexuality has there been besides Kefka, the arguable transvestite, from FFVI? And transvestism?! So what if Cloud was needed to infiltrate an area via "en femme"? It's a short section of the game and it was a pixelated mess.

Sexuality, let me think (my memory is half good on gaming). VI, nope. VII, nope (Tifa was "top-heavy"). VIII, didn't play. IX, nope. X, underwater make-out scene and Lulu's attire is iffy. X-2, that massage mini-game freaked me out and their attire. XI, didn't play due to online. XII, still playing and the only dispute are the Vieras' attire. Undercover cops in prostitution have just as much sexuality, but it's a necessary good, no?

Suicide... not really (from my experience). Homicide, very much so. Sephiroth killed Aerith, so Cloud killed Sephiroth. The only time I can think of was when Tidus (FFX) jumped off the Fahrenheit at the end, but he was just an apparition anyway. Also, it's not like it glorifying it either.

Religion. FFXII, the villains defy "the gods/fates". What do they get? Most are burned up by their manufactured idols ("manufacted nethicite") while the others are destroyed by Ashelia and the crew. Gabranth also comes to see the errors of his ways and joins the final fight for good against his superior, Vayne. Gabranth was saved in one way or another. Ruling out the villains of Final Fantasy, there hasn't been--if my memory serves correct--a defiance/negativity towards religion... except maybe the false religion of Yevon, which said that a summoner should die for their people to rid the world of pain for 3 years, "Sin". FFX was about defeating "Sin" and the false gods.
I think I am done with my ranting for today. I would like to see some counter-points though. +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 22:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:Many characters are unnecessarily sexualized (specially on concept art), just look at FFX-2. There's also a few sexual references here and there. (Though its not as bad as other games.) Also, Faris and Kuja are definitely transvestives.
:There's also plenty of suicide in FFVI, with at least two of your main characters practicing it. There's also Dyne in FFVII committing it.
:And if Final Fantasy Tactics wasn't a subtle attempt at subversion against Christianity, I don't know what it is. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::it isn't a subtle attempt at subverting christianity, it was a successful attempt to make money by creating a video game that took place in a fantasy world. (and as for the other things i have no idea cause i dont play FF, although their are other games with more violence and sexuallity, try picking on gta, that will be easier)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-05T04:40:45Z

Greenmeanie:

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the current front runner of the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, and presumptive nominee for the [[Democratic Party]]<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref>. Obama is a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]], first elected to statewide office in 2004. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor when in actuality he only held the title of "Senior Lecturer." <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-choice]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref>

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination becomes official when either [[Hillary Clinton]] concedes or at the Democratic Nominating Convention in August.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> While he is generally considered [[liberal]] by [[America]]n standards, he could be considered a moderate [[conservative]] on an international scale.<ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]],
<ref>In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.</ref>
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.<ref>"Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10." [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]</ref> His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]].

Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views.

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Petition of Right

2008-06-05T02:54:55Z

Greenmeanie: New page: did he sign it, did it come into effect?-~~~~

did he sign it, did it come into effect?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:54, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Petition of Right

2008-06-05T02:54:37Z

Greenmeanie:

The '''Petition of Right''' was a document which the British Parliament tried to get [[Charles I]] to sign. It would have limited the powers of the King in four significant ways. He could not imprison people without a valid reason, he could not force people to house soldiers in private homes, he would not impose taxes without consulting parliament, and he could not enforce martial law during peace time.

{{stub}}

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-05T02:33:43Z

Greenmeanie:

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-05T02:33:05Z

Greenmeanie: wondering

Watchtower

2008-06-04T02:33:16Z

Greenmeanie:

'''''The Watchtower''''' weekly magazine (full title ''The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom'') has been continuously printed by the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] since 1879. ''The Watchtower'' is the primary teaching tool by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of [[Pennsylvania]], a legal nonprofit [[corporation]] established and run by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The magazine was originally published by [[Charles Taze Russell]] and was known as ''Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence''.

The stated purpose of the magazine (printed on page 2 of all issues) is to:
* Exalt [[Jehovah]] God as Sovereign Lord of the Universe.
* Keep watch on world events as these fulfill Bible prophecy.
* Comfort people with the good news that God's Kingdom will destroy those who oppress their fellow men and turn earth into a paradise.
* Encourage faith in Christ Jesus whose shed blood opens the way to eternal life.
* Remain non-political, adhering to the Bible as its authority.

As of December 15, 2007, the magazine had an average printing of 28,578,000 copies in 161 languages (either monthly or semi-monthly).

'''Sources:'''

''The Watchtower'' (December 15, 2007)

[[Category:magazines]][[category:christianity]]

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-04T02:06:57Z

Greenmeanie:

Talk:Spring project

2008-06-04T00:52:30Z

Greenmeanie:

Perhaps it would be better if you wrote the page on the parent article and put this section underneath it. It seems odd to have a small writeup on an add-on and not have the main game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:49, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:well it (spring project) is sorta the main game, it was made open source and based on a old rts game (11 years old) that i haven't played and i don't know if anyone here has.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 20:52, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Unknown

2008-06-03T05:53:49Z

Greenmeanie:

In [[mathematics]], when a letter is used to represent a number or set of numbers it is called an '''unknown'''. This letter usually has a very specific range of values, unlike a [[variable]] which can be changed arbitrarily to alter the value of a [[function]] which acts on the variable.

[[category:mathematics]]

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-03T05:41:57Z

Greenmeanie:

Time magazine

2008-06-03T05:33:02Z

Greenmeanie: Reverted edits by DanH; changed back to last version by greenmeanie

Time magazine

2008-06-03T05:27:40Z

Greenmeanie: Reverted edits by DanH; changed back to last version by greenmeanie

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-06-03T05:09:22Z

Greenmeanie: /* Protected */

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:no, athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Deletion suggestion ==

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-06-03T05:09:08Z

Greenmeanie: /* Protected */

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:no athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Deletion suggestion ==

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-06-03T05:06:02Z

Greenmeanie: /* Athiests? */

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
no athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Deletion suggestion ==

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-06-03T05:05:17Z

Greenmeanie: /* Protected */

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
no athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Deletion suggestion ==

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-03T03:48:59Z

Greenmeanie:

Spider

2008-06-02T13:59:10Z

Greenmeanie:

'''Spiders''' are a group of arachnids characterized by possessing eight legs and eyes, a fused [[head]] and thorax and a large abdomen. Both [[land]] and [[sea]] varieties are known, with many of the [[sea]] spiders being known for their spindly legs and often strange appearances. Spiders feed on flies, although some exotic varieties are blood-drinkers.

[[Category:Insects]]

Talk:M3A1 Grease Gun Submachine Gun

2008-06-02T13:57:24Z

Greenmeanie:

why conservapedia has articles on random WWII guns? why is this article so flat-out bad? why are you talking about MP-39s without even explaining what is an MP-39 to the general public? why don't you understand that submachinegunners didn't carrier carbines?

why dont you sign your comments Schwarze?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 09:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Windows 7

2008-06-02T13:55:06Z

Greenmeanie:

Windows Seven (previosly known as "Vienna" [formerly known as "Blackcomb"]) is the name for the next version of Microsoft's Windows operating system, originally announced in February 2000, but has since been subject to major delays such as Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista (which was also delayed by XP SP2). Microsoft has stated that "Seven" should be released in late 2009 or early 2010 (Bill Gates said it could be anywhere between 2009-2010), work on Windows Seven began right after Windows Vista was released. As of May 2007, the name of the operating system used by Microsoft is unknown, though "Windows Seven" was noted in a job posting as a possible working name for the project, and is the only name by which the next version of Windows can currently be called.

Microsoft has declined from discussing details about Windows Seven in public as they focus on the release and selling of Windows Vista, though some early details of a few core operating system features have sufaced at developer conferences such as WHEC in 2006.

== History & Development ==
The codename "Windows Blackcomb" was first assigned to Windows NT 6.0, an operating system that was planned to follow Windows XP. Blackcomb was supposed to be the successor to both Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1) and Windows Server 2003 (Windows NT 5.2). In late 2001 "Blackcomb" was said to be scheduled for release in 2005 then in August it was announced that a minor intermediate release, codenamed Windows "Longhorn", would release in 2002 to update the Windows NT 5.x line. In the years that followed "Longhorn" was transformed to include many features previously promised for "Blackcomb" and became Windows NT 6, and was given a name, [[Windows Vista]]. The codename "Blackcomb" was eventually discarded, however the ideas and features behind "Blackcomb" that were not included in [[Windows Vista]] got a new name codename Windows "Vienna". At the present, Windows Vista's successor (Windows Seven) is being planned as both a client and server release with a current shipping date of late 2009 - early 2010.

== Focus ==
Sources in Microsoft have stated that Windows Seven will not just be a major change to Windows, but a complete departure from the way users today usually think about using a computer. For example, the "Start" and "Taskbar" philosophy, introduced in Windows 95, might be replaced by a "new interface" that was said in 1999 to be scheduled for Windows Seven ("Vienna"). While Windows Vista was intended to be an evolutionary release, Windows Vienna is targeted directly at revolutionizing the way users of the product interact with their PCs.

Bill Gates, in an interview with Newsweek [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934083/site/newsweek/page/4/], also suggested that the next version of Windows would "be more user-centric.". When asked to clarify what he meant, Gates said:
<blockquote>
"That means that right now when you move from one PC to another, you've got to install apps on each one, do upgrades on each one. Moving information between them is very painful. We can use Live Services to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things. So that's kind of the user-centric thing that Live Services can enable. [Also,] in Vista, things got a lot better with [digital] ink and speech, but by the next release there will be a much bigger bet. Students won't need textbooks; they can just use these tablet devices. Parallel computing is pretty important for the next release. We'll make it so that a lot of the high-level graphics will be just built into the operating system. So we've got a pretty good outline."
</blockquote>
[[category:information technology]]

== Shipment ==
Microsoft is planning to release Windows Seven by the end of 2009, according to Ben Fathi, corporate vice president of development with Microsoft's Windows Core Operating System Division.

Microsoft originally had planned for Vista to include a number of big changes to Windows, including a new file system ([[WinFS]]) and a completly new user interface, but after Windows XP was hit by huge worm outbreaks in 2003, Microsoft moved almost all of its entire engineering team to locking down Windows with the XP SP2 release.

"We put Longhorn on the back burner for awhile," Fathi said. "Then when we came back to it, we realized that there were incremental things that we wanted to do, and significant improvements that we wanted to make in Vista that we couldn't deliver in one release."

Windows Vista shipped about 2-3 years after XP SP2, and Windows Seven is estimated to take around the same amount of time, according to Fathi. "You can think roughly two, two-and-a-half years is a reasonable time frame that our partners can depend on and can work with, that's a good time frame for refresh." That would put Microsoft's next OS out by the end of 2009.

== Features ==
What is going to be the best new feature in Windows 7?

Ben Fathi said, that's still being worked out. "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is," he said. "Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers. It's too early for me to talk about it, but over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."

Time magazine

2008-06-02T13:42:09Z

Greenmeanie: Reverted edits by Karajou; changed back to last version by greenmeanie)

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-02T13:39:31Z

Greenmeanie:

Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?

2008-06-02T12:41:15Z

Greenmeanie:

{{debate}}

Yes. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:30, 16 February 2008 (EST)

According to the Bible there's one. - Ultimahero. March 8, 2008.

How do Christians reconcile the fact that only one region of the world has any beliefs similar to those described in the old testament if there was such a small human population after the flood. There for every human civilization should have some story of the flood or ark, a very similar god, and similar languages. But this is not true. I would like to hear what other people think? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:36, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

There actually are several different stories of a "great flood" from many cultures around the world. As far as different languages, the Bible addressed this at the Tower of Babel. Everyone spoke the same language, yet God scrambled their languages so they couldn’t understand one another. And as far as different gods and religions go, I don’t think it would actually take that long to spread and differ. For example, in the US in the 1800’s, the majority of people were Christians. Yet then along comes Joseph Smith and before long he has taken on a bunch of followers into the new Mormon church. Now, only about 150 years later, Mormonism is pretty big. Just imagine that, only lots of people trying to come up with new theological systems. You could have tons of them in a relatively short time frame. [[Ultimahero]]

I can only think of one religion besides from christianity that mentions a great flood, and that is the Mayan creation myth. They believed they were the third race created by their gods with the first being made of mud and then being destroyed by a flood, the next being made of wood and an attempt was made to destroy them with another flood, but they lived and became monkeys. Not much similarity to the story of the ark. What other cultures have a story of a flood? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Babylonians have the story of Upnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh; the Greeks have Deucalion. There are possibly many more cultures that do. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:43, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

There’s the Sumerians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians, Indonesia, Greek, and many others that have flood stories. [[Ultimahero.]]

I've been reading up on the Tower of Babel, and I can't tell does it deal with the differences in races too or simply language? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 20:06, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Judging by the text, I'd say it's just language. God mixed up their languages, but it doesn't say anything about race. The number of different races is probably just a natural biological occurrence. [[Ultimahero]], March 20

How do we know there is even one God? May you please provide proof?-Gabriel131.

What I originally wrote was that according to the Bible there's one God. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

The proof for God is the existence of logical absolutes. Logic is governed by absolute laws, much in the same way that the physical world is governed by scientific laws. An example of a law of logic would be the ‘Law of Identity’. This laws states that something is what it is and is not what it’s not. Ex: A tree is a tree; a tree is not a cat. This law, among others, govern how logic works.

By nature, these laws are absolute. They are true regardless of whether or not people agree with them or not. They also transcend space and time. This means that no matter where you truth is still truth. For example, 2+2 is true here, it is true if you go 100 miles away, 1,000 miles away, to the edge f the universe, etc. No matter where you go, it’s still true. And it’s true whenever you are. Regardless of how far back in time you go or how far into the future you go, 2+2 is still a true concept. So the laws of logic are absolute. This also means that the laws of logic are independent of the physical universe. Where and when doesn’t affect logic. In fact, even if the universe ceased to be, 2+2 would still be true.

Secondly, the laws of logic are conceptual by nature. Logic only occurs in the mind. You can’t see logic, touch it, find it under a rock, etc. They aren’t physical items. They only exist in the mind and require a mind to exist. But, they aren’t dependent on human minds, because human minds are different and if that would mean that logic would be different for each person, which it is not.

So, we conclude that logic is absolute, transcendent, conceptual, and independent of human minds and the physical universe. So, how do you account for this? As a Christian, I can say that God is the answer, because He fits all these attributes. He is absolute (unchanging), He transcends all of space and time, has a mind, and is independent of humanity and the universe. I can account for it, but it’s not possible to do so without God. That is the proof for God. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Why would a God be limited by something as puny as LOGIC? Even humans ignore logic 90% of the time.
::And observing the physical universe, I'd say that given the basic assumption of deific creation, the available evidence rather strongly supports the notion of a committee of bickering entities having been to blame, rather than one allegedly omnibenevolent God with humanity's best interests at heart.
::And as a [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGenius]] [[Discordianism|Discordian]] Fusion Paranoid(tm) who's also a roleplayer, I MAKE UP more deities in one day than most people will worship in their entire lifetime. :)
::Do You Believe That? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Who said God was limited by logic? God is logical. It's one of His attributes. Since God is perfect, He is perfectly logical. You said humans ignore logic 90% of the time. That's because they're not perfect and can be illogical. Only a being that could think perfectly and knew all could be perfectly logical. And logic is consitent through and through. I used the example of the Law of Identity, which is a law that is true always. That supports one God, because it's as though it's been authored by a single mind. If there were a committee of Gods, then the laws of logic would change from time to time and place to place. But they don't. And my point was the logic's existence points to God. If you disagree, then explain the existence of logic without God. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:57, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:Humans want the universe to make sense, but the universe is no more sensical than it is hot or cold--PARTS of it might be, but not the whole. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:13, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't address the point. Logic exists and there is no question about it. So, how do you account for logical laws which are absolute, transcendent, conceptual, and independent of humanity and the physical universe? As a Christian, I can do that with God because He perfectly fits all of these categories. But how does an Atheist do so? If you can account for it, then please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:30, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it so. If a truly omnipotent diety wanted to make a rock so big It couldn't lift it, it could--and could then LIFT IT ANYWAY. That's what ''omnipotence''' MEANS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 20:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

No, that's a logical fallacy. Something can only do that which is consitent with it's nature. God is by nature and definition the biggest thing in existence. To ask Him to make something bigger than He is, which would make Him something lesser than something else, is illogical. God can't contradict His own nature. And you still haven't accounted for the existence of logic. If I'm wrong about logic or one of it's characteristics, then show me where. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:29, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::Do you know what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:34, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

No, I can't say that I've heard of it before. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
:ultimahero, god isn't the biggest thing in existence, because im pretty sure that he can control his size, and he could make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it, just like he could make a square circle (he created the concept of a circular circle so he could make a square one). and ultimahero, saying that god transcends all physical laws is true if you believe in him, but that means that there is no proof whatsoever otherwise (and could you give me a few logical examples), and account for YOUR god being true, not some other one

Talk:Arthur Conan Doyle

2008-06-02T06:11:24Z

Greenmeanie:

Why is this page protected? ACD is hardly a figure of controversy. You might, btw, add a line about his strong belief in [[spiritualism]]. [[User:BobCherry|BobCherry]] 17:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

: It is protected during the time it is in the Main Page. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::its not on the main page anymore, could a Sysop please unprotect this? (its pretty unessasary)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 02:11, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Alarmist

2008-06-02T06:05:20Z

Greenmeanie:

An '''alarmist''' is one who tries to alarm others, especially by using exaggerations.

In modern usage, such people can fall under the following categories:
*Some bloggers
*[[Global Warming]] alarmists
*Certain Left-Wing websites
*Certain Right-Wing websites
*Nationalist governments which seek to gain the blind trust of the populist by way of inventing threats to national security. See [[Nazi]] and ''[[1984]]''.
*Extremists
[[Category:Politics]]

Time magazine

2008-06-02T05:22:14Z

Greenmeanie: if you dissagree say something in the talk page, just dont revert it

Talk:CE

2008-06-02T04:50:28Z

Greenmeanie: /* Rabbi dialogue revisited */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

Talk:Braille

2008-06-02T03:16:22Z

Greenmeanie: New page: this really doesn't read like a encyclopedia article at this point-~~~~

this really doesn't read like a encyclopedia article at this point-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:16, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bobby Fischer

2008-06-02T03:11:18Z

Greenmeanie:

There should be some mention that Paul Morphy of Louisiana was the unofficial world chess champion just before the Civil War. He won a match against Gen. Winfield Scott once. [[User:Chronicler|Chronicler]] 11:47, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:and that should be on bobby fisher's page because?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative Action

2008-06-02T03:03:07Z

Greenmeanie:

'''Affirmative action''' refers to policies proposed to remedy the historical effects of race or sex discrimination. This is commonly done by giving an individual a preference or advantage based their [[race]], ethnic background, or [[gender]]; see [[reverse discrimination]]. [[Quotas]] are an extreme form of affirmative action.

The original concept of affirmative action, when introduced by the [[President Johnson|Johnson]] administration, was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities).

* The worst feature of such programs is that they are presented to the public as if they were "equal opportunity" programs when they are patently aimed at "equal outcomes" regardless of the merits and abilities of job applicants. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]

In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory - discrimination remains discrimination.

''[[Regents v. Bakke]]'' effectively outlawed [[quotas]] but allowed affirmative action as long as there are considerations other than race. This is sometimes called reverse discrimination.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
{{cquote|Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden by Dinesh D'Souza]</ref>}}

[[John H. McWhorter]] wrote:
{{cquote|For most black Americans, the rapid increase of the black middle class, of [[interracial relationship]]s and [[interracial marriage|marriages]], and of blacks in prestigious positions has no bearing on the real state of [[black America]]. Further, they believe, whites’ inability to grasp the unmistakable reality of [[oppression]] is itself proof of [[racism]], while blacks who question that reality are self-deluded. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html]}}

On August 28, 2007 the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report that determined that affirmative action can be harmful to minority law school students due to the fact that many students admitted through affirmative action programs are unprepared and are thus being set up for failure.<ref>[http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf U.S. Civil Rights Commission Warns That Affirmative Action Might Harm Minority Law Students]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-02T01:40:42Z

Greenmeanie:

Time magazine

2008-06-02T01:22:47Z

Greenmeanie:

Talk:Time magazine

2008-06-02T01:17:26Z

Greenmeanie:

The Onion

2008-06-02T01:17:02Z

Greenmeanie:

'''The Onion''' is a weekly parody newspaper audience that pokes fun of many subjects, especially American and world leaders. It does not have any political agenda beyond making fun of authority figures, though it frequently features. The Onion was originally published in [[Madison]], [[Wisconsin]], by students attending the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and has since grown to national distribution.

== External link ==

*[http://www.theonion.com/ The Onion]

[[category:websites]]

Talk:The Onion

2008-06-02T01:15:33Z

Greenmeanie:

Besides the lack of citations, doesn't the Onion lampoon everything?
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 20:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I frequently LOL at the Onion, but they don't shy away from mature (well.. not really, but adult-aimed... er... they use naughty words) content. That hasn't be kosher in other spots of CP, but then again it isn't an all-the-time thing at the Onion. Thoughts? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:19, 16 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- cries when he reads it...''

"The Onion is not intended for readers under the age of 18." Honestly, I don't think it's inappropriate for 15-year olds. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I just changed the sentence that made it seem like The Onion was officially affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which it never was. To me there's a difference between being a "school newspaper" and a newspaper published by students attending a school. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 14:11, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Not inappropriate for 15-year olds!! The Onion frequently features articles mocking Christianity and Christian values, with titles such as "God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder" and "Christ Kills Two, Injures Seven In Abortion-Clinic Attack." This article should be amended to reflect the frequent liberal and anti-Christian bias of the Onion. [[User:Hermann1359|Hermann1359]] 13:04, 31 January 2008 (EST)

so? people did die in the attack on the clinic, and satire doesn't make something inappropriate for 15 year olds (i mean they swear, and watch horribly violent movies (well i do, and i am much more sheltered then the vast majority of the world)) and are you suggesting that mocking christan values makes it worse than a R rated movie? and from looking at the news page, it seems to be mocking just about everything. from the front page of the website (at the time) all it is mocking politically is pretty much hillary clinton-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 21:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Catch-22

2008-06-02T01:05:01Z

Greenmeanie:

'''''Catch-22''''' is a bitterly satirical anti-war novel by [[Joseph Heller]] (1961). It deals with American bombardier John Yossarian. Yossarian is stationed on the Italian island of Pianosa during [[World War II]]. He attempts to get out of flying more combat missions by pretending to be crazy. The problem is, only a sane man would want to get out of combat, therefore Yossarian cannot be considered crazy.

The term "Catch-22" has come to mean an unwinnable situation.

==Film Adaptations==
''Catch-22'' was made into a film of the same name, which was released in 1970.

==References==
*Heller, Joseph. ''Catch-22''. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961.
*Falstein, Louis. ''Face of a Hero'', 1951.

[[category:Novels]]