Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-16T20:43:05Z

Grumblesnout:

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::No, his post has 119 words. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Your claim is based on the fact that since statistical averages indicate that on the whole, boys perform in math better than girls, that tenet holds for the individuals. This is the Part-whole fallacy: it is akin to saying "The clock is big, therefore the clock's parts are big". By this logic, it is impossible to climb Mt. Everest, because statistically, most people don't.
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: Praying silently to one's self, and only before meals, can be nearly inconsequential. The real benefit is from public prayer in churches, classrooms, meetings, etc.

: Judging by your other postings, I think you've taken in liberal ideology and that does have consequences. There's no real concept of self-defense, which is essential to fend off mental problems; there's a degradation of the view of humans to the point of where they mean little more than dogs, and that affects self-esteem; and there's no emphasis on self-help, which hurts further. In fact, the list is quite long for how liberal ideology leads to mental illness. Wake up to it while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Can you expand on why you feel that praying silently to one's self can be "nearly inconsequential", and that the real benefit is in public prayer? That seems to contradict Matthew 6, but I want to understand your views on this better. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::I am surprised you assume that I was "only" praying before meals. In college, I went to a Christian University where Chapel attendance was mandatory and group prayer was encouraged, but it did not stop mental illness from developing in college. I did develop some liberal ideas, but that was after I developed mental illness, not before. I was raised Christian, and was into Wicca for awhile, (this was after I'd graduated from college) which primarily benefited me by emphasizing personal responsibility and choice for my own actions, rather than blaming evil and Satan for everything that went wrong. Moreover, Wicca does indeed allow for self-defense, unlike some brands of Christianity, which teach to "turn the other cheek". It is probably telling that the part I studied most when I was in Wicca was the part about psychic self-defense. Prayer, by the way, is also considered by Wiccans and pagans to be a form of magic, since it raises and directs energy for a purpose. I did go to a public high school, and the teachers there did not teach many of the things that this article claims they teach. These "secular liberal teachings" seem to me to be the product of peer teachings, not educator teachings. By the way, remember perfect love casts out fear.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-16T20:38:47Z

Grumblesnout: added template as per recommendation on talk-page

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #FF66ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 3px #000000;">'''This Article Contains at least one Logical Fallacy''' Some examples include: Hasty Generalization, Ad Hominem, Fallacy of Slippery Assimilation, Fallacy of Slippery Precedents, Strawman, Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, BEGGING THE QUESTION It is necessary to ensure that all arguments are clear and logical. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]] in your actions, though.</div><includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

Mental illness is rapidly increasing in the world and "will be the second biggest cause of death and disability by 2020."<ref>http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=1447</ref> According to the World Health Organization:

:Mental illnesses, from epilepsy to depression, currently affect over 400 million people around the world. This group includes 45 million people with schizophrenia.

:America and Japan experience the highest levels of depression .... Over 1 million people now die through suicide each year and the ten countries with the highest suicide rates are all former Soviet states.

The above-cited countries are notable for imposing [[liberal]] or [[atheistic]] teachings by their governments on large populations. In the [[United States]], liberal indoctrination governs [[public schools]], which educate 89% of children. As of 2002, "[a]n estimated 20 percent of children have a mental illness that causes at least mild functional impairment,"<ref>http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/11/1444</ref> with nearly all those children a product of a [[public school]] education.

[[Public schools]] educate 89% of Americans, and "[t]he incidence that a teen will have depression some time in their adolescence is higher, felt to be at least one out of four.<ref>http://www.askaspecialist.ca.gov/archives/2008/Med/Apr_2008.htm</ref>

Mental illness has increased on college campuses. "'Growing mental health problems suffered by students are a "matter of considerable concern,' warranting dedicated student mental health services in some areas, according to 'The Mental Health of Students in Higher Education' report produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists."<ref>[http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Education/Increase-in-mental-illness-on-campus-Suicide-don-under-huge-stress-in-job.html Increase in mental illness on campus]</ref>

[[Japan]] has the largest [[atheistic]] population of any country in the world.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> The former Soviet states have rates of [[atheism]] that are among the highest in the world.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

[[Britain]], a smaller country but one that also has heavy [[liberal]] indoctrination, expects a 61% increase in dementia cases by 2026, and "[i]n the last 10 years, funding for mental health services has risen sharply."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/28/mentalhealth.socialcare</ref>

== Cause and Effect ==

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.<ref>http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/</ref> Accordingly, they cannot rule out that [[liberal]] indoctrination is a contributing factor.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders<ref>See, e.g., the [[NIH]] definition of "conduct disorder" to include lying.[http://science-education.nih.gov/supplements/nih5/Mental/other/glossary.htm]</ref>
* there are no real differences between boys and girls
* humans are just another type of animal
* all there is is what you see
* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions
* self-inflicted death can somehow be good
* denying self-defense, mentally and physically
* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness
* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; [[classroom prayer]] would promote mental stability

== Anecdotal Evidence ==

Actor Stephen Fry is the author of the book "The Liar" and was an active supporter of the [[liberal]] [[British]] [[Labour Party]], though he did not vote for it in a recent election because it was not [[leftist]] enough on the [[Iraq War]]. "The 49-year-old actor has been tormented by mental illness for much of his life."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060917/ai_n16736921</ref> Specifically he is a sufferer of bipolar disorder, a largely hereditary disease.

[[professor values|Professor]] David Foster Wallace was a prodigy in writing, math and even tennis in his youth but adopted the [[liberal]] ideology. He wrote in 1999 a collection of short stories entitled, "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men," in which he "damns his gender as a greedy, cold, oversexed marauders."<ref>http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1841102,00.html]</ref> In 2008, Wallace killed himself at age 46.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Mystery]]

Talk:Deceit

2008-09-16T20:23:25Z

Grumblesnout: /* American Public Schools */ refuting "public schools don't teach morality"

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I have to correct you. In many public school systems, because of pressure from Conservative lobbies, parents' groups, and churches, students are not permitted to learn anything BUT absolute "right and wrong" morality. State textbook guidelines in some of the largest markets (Texas and California) mandate that stories in primary school readers are not permitted to portray children "in conflict with adults"<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375414824</ref>, facing "complicated moral problems", or issues "without a clear right or wrong answer". Liberal pressure groups insist that these lessons are presented secularly; the result (Diane Ravitch argues in the book that this post references) is a bland, Bowdlerized reading curriculum that young people find unrealistic and boring, but politically correct to suit both Liberal and Conservative censorists.

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)
==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

== Jacob example ==

Is there any reason for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=next&oldid=512709 this revert] in particular? I don't see why the example of Jacob isn't a reasonable example of how deceit can land you in trouble. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]]

==Huckabee and Wayne DuMond==

Doesn't this classify as deceit? He vehemently denied any involvement in DuMond's release, but tantamount evidence shows otherwise, and he still denies it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Examples ==

When possible, we want prominent examples of deceit where it is evident the individual knew what they were doing without question. So Huckabee would not be a good example, as it is unclear that he directly talked with the women or had reviewed their paperwork. Subordinates often handle much of that work and how things are presented to the governor. If a person is directly responsible, then that is different. Bill Clinton wagging his finger on TV while he talked about Monica Lewinsky is direct involvement where he obviously knew what he was doing. (In this case it was decided at an earlier time not to include that example in this article, so I am using it for display purposes only.) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:You might be right, but there's really no evidence to support that he didn't know anything about it. At a minimum, he was dishonest about disclosing the records:
::"Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
::...But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive ."
:And this seems to suggest two-way correspondence from Huckabee himself:
::"The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee."
:I don't think we can' write this off so easily, especially when there are really weak cases, like the Michael Moore example. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Huckabee knew what he was doing - he took the parole board into a private meeting and pushed for DuMond's release. Victims sent letters, and he ignored them. He still denies having no involvement in DuMond's release, however, which is deceit. If you'd like, I'll search for multiple sources. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed this article closely and I can see it has changed over time. Our general philosophy was to note strong examples with an understanding that too many examples would water down the article itself. A choice was also made to be careful with politicians, as a case can be made for almost anyone that they were deceitful, except in the case of undeniable evidence of purposeful deceit. So questions I would have with Huckabee would be in the why arena. Are we saying the man purposely wanted to get a rapist out of prison with the knowledge he was likely to rape again? And that somehow the parole board agreed? I would imagine that based on the information presented that it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time or else he - and the board - would not have made that decision. You'll also see that I removed reference to deceit for another politician, as I believe the reference failed to merit inclusion based upon the same standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree with you in principal. I think I've said before (and if not said, I've at least thought it very hard) that there shouldn't be a list at all for a multitude of reasons. But since we have one, I think this might be a good one to go on it. I reread the article and discovered that apparently the reason that Huckabee wanted the prisoner released was that it was a major issue with his conservative voterbase, who thought that the charges were trumped up and that the victim was related to Bill Clinton (a distant cousin). According to [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html this] article that I just found, Huckabee himself did actually ask the parole board to release the prisoner. Or his aide could be lying, but there's no evididence for that either.

:So do whatever you think is right, Learn together. It sounds like I'm committed on keeping this example in, but really I just want to make sure it gets a fair read, lest it look like we are censoring conservative examples of deceit (and I completely doubt that's what you are trying to do here!!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Inherit the Wind

2008-09-16T20:08:36Z

Grumblesnout: This article accuses a work of fiction of being a fabrication. Fixed, somewhat.

'''Inherit the Wind''' is a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee. It is a fictionalized, dramatic account of events that bear a resemblance to the [[Scopes Monkey Trial]]. The play was first presented on [[Broadway]] in 1955 and was made into a movie in 1960. It is a classic of the modern theater, and was remounted on Broadway in 2008 starring Patrick Denehey and Christopher Plummer.

While the events and characters portrayed in the play are analogous to events of the [[Scopes Monkey Trial]], the play's authors indicate in their preface that the play "does not pretend to be journalism. It is theatre. It is not 1925. The stage directions set the time as 'Not too long ago.' It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow."<ref>http://www.novelguide.com/InherittheWind/toptenquotes.html</ref>.

David Menton, a [[Christian]] Anatomist and [[Creationist]] wrote:
*There is considerable evidence that the play and film are not simply inaccurate, but rather are highly biased in their intent. The historical inaccuracies are systematic and of a kind that presents a consistent bias of slanderous proportions against people who believe the Biblical account of creation.
*On the other hand, those critical of the miracles of the Bible are portrayed as eminently reasonable people who must suffer abuse, threats and ignorance from fundamentalist Christians.
*The evidence suggests that the inaccuracies in the play and film Inherit The Wind are substantive, intentional and systematic. Christians, and particularly William Jennings Bryan, are consistently lampooned throughout the play, while skeptics and agnostics are portrayed as intelligent, kindly, and even heroic. I cannot escape the conclusion that the writers of Inherit The Wind never intended to write a historically accurate account of the Scopes trial, nor did they seriously attempt to portray the principal characters and their beliefs in a fair and accurate way. <ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/682 Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Fictional Character
! Historical person
|-
| the Reverend Jeremiah Brown
| (fictitious)
|-
| Brown's persecuted daughter, Rachel
| (fictitious)
|-
| Matthew Harrison Brady
| [[William Jennings Bryan]]
|-
| Henry Drummond
| [[Clarence Darrow]]
|-
| Bert Cates
| [[John Scopes]]
|-
| E.K. Hornbeck
| [[H.L. Mencken]]
|}

----
Fabrications in the movie include:

Bryan’s movie character betrays the trust of Scopes’s girlfriend, who is the local preacher’s daughter, and who is shattered by the breach of confidence. ‘Bryan’ is presented as a harsh and desperate man willing even to ‘sell out’ an innocent girl to achieve victory. In reality Scopes did not even have a girlfriend.

Distorting and parodying Christian morality, Bryan’s movie character claims that sexual intercourse is the ‘original sin’. In reality, there was however no mention made about sex at all during Darrow’s examination of Bryan.

Bryan’s character was portrayed as having a ‘head-in-the-sand’ approach to life by refusing even to read Darwin’s writings. In fact, Bryan was highly educated and had discussed Darwin’s books with leading evolutionists.

In real life, Scopes was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine, which Bryan charitably offered to pay on his behalf. The play however, has ‘Bryan’ protesting that the fine ought to be much harsher.

In the fabricated closing scenes, ‘Bryan’ is portrayed as a defeated and broken man, insanely reciting Scripture in a sweat-laden frenzy of madness, before dramatically dying in the courtroom. He is looked upon with pity by the calm and reasonable evolutionists, and those gathered from the press.

The message in the film was clear: To portray those who accept evolution as being progressive truth-seekers, unshackled by false old religious ideas, and full of common sense. But Christians were portrayed as dishonest and hypocritical, or as ignorant yokels who deny the truth of progress occurring all around them, preferring to remain attached to quaint old traditions. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5625/]

[[category:Plays]]
[[category:Movies]]

User:Chippeterson

2008-09-16T19:48:48Z

Grumblesnout:

[[Image:Peterson_Group_Kids.jpg|right|thumb|250px|'''My sister and me in our early days''']]

==Biography==
I'm Chip Peterson, 17, I've been here at conservapedia since June 2007 and since have been very active in creating the biography's of politicians. I'm a staunch supporter of the [[Republican Party]] and I'm the most [[conservative]] [[member]] of my [[family]]. My parents are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights Republicans. And my sister is a [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] and member of MoveOn.org. But my families views don't reflect mine. I have a lot ambitions at conservapedia that I hope to achieve by working hard enough.

==Front Page==
It's such an honor to be mentioned on the front page. I have a very significant lead in the wanted pages. But I'm not going to work any less. Someone could catch up to me. Plus I have a lot of work to do in the news suggestions. But it's still really cool to be mentioned like that. -
==Conservapedia Day==
By November 21st, I intend to come in first for both [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page]], and [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]]. I.WILL.WIN!

==Some of my created articles or articles I have put a significant percentage of content too:==
(list incomplete)

*[[Henry Stimson]]
*[[David Foster Wallace]]
*[[Horror movie]]
*[[Jill Greenberg]]
*[[University of Central Florida]]
*[[Peggy Noonan]]
*[[Betty Ford]]
*[[Tasha Danvers-Smith]]
*[[John McCain]]
*[[Gerald Ford]]
*[[Ray Nagin]]
*[[Hurricane Gustav]]
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Tim Kaine]]
*[[Cindy McCain]]
*[[Mitt Romney 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
*[[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
*[[Lamar Alexander]]
*[[Wayne Allard]]
*[[George Allen]]
*[[Joseph Biden]]
*[[Kit Bond]]
*[[Jim Bunning]]
*[[Bob Casey, Jr.]]
*[[Lincoln Chafee]]
*[[Norm Coleman]]
*[[Susan Collins]]
*[[Bob Corker]]
*[[Richard Durbin]]
*[[John Ensign]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]]
*[[Amy Klobuchar]]
*[[Patrick Leahy]]
*[[Blanche Lincoln]]
*[[Mel Martinez]]
*[[Lisa Murkowski]]
*[[Ben Nelson]]
*[[Bill Nelson]]
*[[Mark Pryor]]
*[[Ken Salazar]]
*[[Jeff Sessions]]
*[[Richard Shelby]]
*[[Gordon Smith]]
*[[Olympia J. Snowe]]
*[[Debbie Stabenow]]
*[[Jim Talent]]
*[[John Warner]]
*[[Jim Webb]]
*[[Sheldon Whitehouse]]
*[[Neil Abercrombie]]
*[[Tom Allen]]
*[[Roy Blunt]]
*[[John Boehner]]
*[[Peter King]]
*[[John Murtha]]
*[[David Obey]]
*[[Colin Powell]]
*[[Mike Beebe]]
*[[Matt Blunt]]
*[[Donald Carcieri]]
*[[Bill Ritter]]
*[[Eliot Spitzer]]

User:Chippeterson

2008-09-16T19:48:17Z

Grumblesnout: "I in our younger days"?

[[Image:Peterson_Group_Kids.jpg|right|thumb|250px|'''My sister and Me in our early days''']]

==Biography==
I'm Chip Peterson, 17, I've been here at conservapedia since June 2007 and since have been very active in creating the biography's of politicians. I'm a staunch supporter of the [[Republican Party]] and I'm the most [[conservative]] [[member]] of my [[family]]. My parents are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights Republicans. And my sister is a [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] and member of MoveOn.org. But my families views don't reflect mine. I have a lot ambitions at conservapedia that I hope to achieve by working hard enough.

==Front Page==
It's such an honor to be mentioned on the front page. I have a very significant lead in the wanted pages. But I'm not going to work any less. Someone could catch up to me. Plus I have a lot of work to do in the news suggestions. But it's still really cool to be mentioned like that. -
==Conservapedia Day==
By November 21st, I intend to come in first for both [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page]], and [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]]. I.WILL.WIN!

==Some of my created articles or articles I have put a significant percentage of content too:==
(list incomplete)

*[[Henry Stimson]]
*[[David Foster Wallace]]
*[[Horror movie]]
*[[Jill Greenberg]]
*[[University of Central Florida]]
*[[Peggy Noonan]]
*[[Betty Ford]]
*[[Tasha Danvers-Smith]]
*[[John McCain]]
*[[Gerald Ford]]
*[[Ray Nagin]]
*[[Hurricane Gustav]]
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Tim Kaine]]
*[[Cindy McCain]]
*[[Mitt Romney 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
*[[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
*[[Lamar Alexander]]
*[[Wayne Allard]]
*[[George Allen]]
*[[Joseph Biden]]
*[[Kit Bond]]
*[[Jim Bunning]]
*[[Bob Casey, Jr.]]
*[[Lincoln Chafee]]
*[[Norm Coleman]]
*[[Susan Collins]]
*[[Bob Corker]]
*[[Richard Durbin]]
*[[John Ensign]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]]
*[[Amy Klobuchar]]
*[[Patrick Leahy]]
*[[Blanche Lincoln]]
*[[Mel Martinez]]
*[[Lisa Murkowski]]
*[[Ben Nelson]]
*[[Bill Nelson]]
*[[Mark Pryor]]
*[[Ken Salazar]]
*[[Jeff Sessions]]
*[[Richard Shelby]]
*[[Gordon Smith]]
*[[Olympia J. Snowe]]
*[[Debbie Stabenow]]
*[[Jim Talent]]
*[[John Warner]]
*[[Jim Webb]]
*[[Sheldon Whitehouse]]
*[[Neil Abercrombie]]
*[[Tom Allen]]
*[[Roy Blunt]]
*[[John Boehner]]
*[[Peter King]]
*[[John Murtha]]
*[[David Obey]]
*[[Colin Powell]]
*[[Mike Beebe]]
*[[Matt Blunt]]
*[[Donald Carcieri]]
*[[Bill Ritter]]
*[[Eliot Spitzer]]

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-09-16T19:16:52Z

Grumblesnout: Contesting claim that "only a female candidate would wear lipstick" with picture of Rudy Giuliani

This page says that "Only a female candidate would wear lipstick" but that's not true. Proof: http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/images/rudy_dress.jpg

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Arts college

2008-09-16T18:42:48Z

Grumblesnout: "most" liberal arts colleges started as divinity schools? Got a source for that?

In the United States, the term '''liberal arts college''' refers to an institution of higher learning which exclusively or mainly grants undergraduate degrees, and which focuses on a traditional general education rather than on specific career-oriented specialties. Historically, some liberal arts colleges in the United States began as divinity schools designed to train Protestant ministers for a life of service.

A ''university,'' in contrast, has one (or more) undergraduate "colleges," but also has "graduate schools" which require an undergraduate degree for entrance. A university might have a medical school, a law school, a business school, and possibly schools of agriculture, music, veterinary medicine, divinity, and others.

The phrase "liberal arts" was coined in classical times. It traditionally included the "trivium" of grammar, rhetoric, and logic, and the "quadrivium" of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. One dictionary definition of "liberal arts" in the modern sense is:
:Academic disciplines, such as languages, literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science, that provide information of general cultural concern.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/L0148800.html Liberal arts], American Heritage Dictionary online</ref>
One liberal arts college expresses its modern meaning thus:
:A successful undergraduate education should primarily develop the essential skills of writing, researching, articulating and defending ideas, and working with others—the skills that prepare graduates for leadership in most any career.<ref>[http://www.williams.edu/admission/academics.php Williams College: Academics], Williams College website</ref>

Famous liberal arts colleges include Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Middlebury, Carleton, Bowdoin, Pomona, Haverford, and Davidson.<ref>[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1libartco_brief.php Liberal Arts Colleges: Top Schools], U. S. News and World Report]</ref> The colleges of the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC)<ref>[http://www.nescac.com/ NESCAC]: Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Connecticut College, Hamilton, Middlebury, Trinity, Tufts, Wesleyan, Williams</ref> are called the "little Ivies" and are sometimes seen analogous to the universities of the [[Ivy League]]. Most of them were historically men's colleges. The "Seven Sisters," another famous group, were historically women's liberal arts colleges; of the original seven, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley, and Barnard remain women's colleges (Barnard with an affiliation with Columbia University); Vassar is coeducational; and Radcliffe no longer exists as an independent undergraduate college (it is part of Harvard University).<ref>[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/cic/about/12812.shtml The Seven Sisters], Mount Holyoke's website</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Education]]