Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Conservative

2007-07-04T18:44:55Z

Historiocality: /* George W. Bush a conservative? */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy.

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

George Strait

2007-07-02T18:55:30Z

Historiocality:

George Strait is a highly acclaimed country music artist.
He currently holds the record for most #1 hit singles by a country music artist with 54. Every one of his 34 albums has reached the RIAA status of gold, with all but 2 reaching platinum status, and 12 have reached multi-platinum.

[[Category:Musicians]]

George Strait

2007-07-02T18:47:49Z

Historiocality: New page: George Strait is a highly acclaimed country music artist. He currently holds the record for most #1 hit singles by a country music artist with 54. Every one of his 34 albums has reached t...

Thomas J. Jackson

2007-07-02T11:44:39Z

Historiocality: /* Early military career */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:SWall.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Thomas Jonathan Jackson
Lieutenant General, CSA
|-
|Born
|January 21, 1824
|-
|Died
|May 10, 1863
|-
|}
'''Lieutenent General Thomas Jonathan Jackson''' was a United States Army officer who later joined the Confederate States Army and fought in the [[American Civil War]], where during the First Battle of Bull Run he earned his famous nickname '''"Stonewall"'''. His battlefield tactics and maneuvers are still studied as part of military curriculum.

==Early life==
He was born in Clarksburg, a mountain town in one of Virginia’s western counties, the son of a lawyer who got himself involved in a series of bad investments and dying of typhoid in 1826 when Thomas was two, leaving his family deep in debt. After their mother died five years later, Thomas, his brother Warren, and sister Laura, spent the remainder of their childhoods between several different relatives (TL 6, pg. 22).

It was during his childhood that Thomas developed a "quirky" personality. He complained of a stomach malady for which no doctor could find a cause. Later, while at West Point, he sat bolt upright in his seat, never allowing his spine to touch the back of his chair; the reason supposedly being that he needed to keep his internal organs in alignment, thus aiding digestion. He convinced himself that the use of pepper in his food made his left leg itch, and he was often seen sucking on lemons. When in battle his men, seeing his left arm raised, often assumed he was praying to his Maker; Thomas had a different explanation: his left arm was heavier than his right, and by lifting it “the blood might run back into his body and lighten it” (TL 6, pp. 23-24).

Despite having little in the way of a formal education while growing up (he had the equivalent of a fourth grade education), he received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1842. Although his start was slow, he made up for it by intense study, often reading his books by the dim light of the coal fire long after his classmates were asleep; he was able to significantly improve his class standing, and was 17th in his class of 59 by the time he graduated in 1846 (TL 6, pg. 25).

==Early military career==
[[Image:Young stonewall.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Jackson as he appeared in Mexico, 1847.]]
He joined his new regiment, the First Artillery, in Mexico, where the United States was engaged in war. He distinguished himself at Veracruz, serving with the most advanced batteries while constantly under Mexican fire, earning a promotion to first lieutenant for “gallant and meritorious conduct.” After the battle he learned that fellow officer John B. Magruder had been placed in command of a captured enemy battery, and was looking for officers. Believing that Magruder would soon be involved in battle, Jackson quickly joined him, and became involved in the thick of the fighting at Churubusco. By the time the war ended, he had attained the rank of brevet major, and was publicly praised by General [[Winfield Scott]]. It was in Mexico that Jackson learned qualities that he put to use later during the Civil War, abilities which helped to make him famous: resourcefulness, a clear mind when the enemy fire was at its hottest, and sheer bravery (TL 6, pg. 25).

Finding service in the peacetime army to be rather tedious, he resigned his commission in August 1851 and became a professor of artillery tactics and natural philosophy at the [[Virginia Military Institute]]. Though he worked hard at his new duties, he never became a popular or highly successful teacher. A stern man, his devotion to his cadets’ education coupled with his religious beliefs, earned him the derisive titles “Deacon Jackson,” “Old Jack,” and “Fool Tom” (TL 6, pg 29).

While at V.M.I. he met Elinor Junkin, daughter of the Reverend Dr. George Junkin, at the time the president of nearby Washington College. They were married on August 4, 1853, and the union was “a great source of happiness,” as Jackson would later write to his sister Laura. But it was short-lived. On October 22, 1852, Elinor died shortly after stillbirthing a son. Although he was unaffiliated with any denomination, he was a deeply religious man, and his religion gave him comfort. He wrote to Laura: “I am reconciled for my loss and have joy and hope of a future reunion where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.” In 1857, Jackson remarried to Mary Anna Morrison. Although they were deeply in love, she had cope with his strict regimen, which included early walks and punctual family prayers each morning. If one was late, Jackson would simply begin without him (TL 6, pp. 29-32).

==The Civil War==
The [[American Civil War]] began on April 12, 1861, and within days Jackson offered his services to Virginia; he was then ordered to bring his corps of cadets from V.M.I. to Richmond, where he was commissioned as a colonel in the state forces and charged with organizing volunteers into an effective fighting brigade. His first assignment was to fortify and defend Harper’s Ferry, and hold it if possible. This was the entry to the Shenandoah Valley, and soon Jackson would withdraw to the more defensible position at Winchester when General Joseph E. Johnston took over command of the Confederate forces in the valley.
[[Image:Stonewall 1862.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Jackson, 1862.]]
In July 1861 Federal forces moved south from Washington into Virginia, and Johnston moved south to unite with General P.G.T. Beauregard near Manassas to meet the advance of General Irvin McDowell's Federal army in what would become the First Battle of Bull Run. It was here that Jackson stationed his brigade in a strong defensive line, withholding the enemy against overwhelming odds; a nearby brigade commander, General Bernard Bee, would rally his own men by saying “There stands General Jackson like a stone wall,” thus earning for Jackson the sobriquet that would remain for the rest of his life.

By the spring of 1862 Jackson was again in the Shenandoah Valley, his diversionary tactics preventing reinforcements being sent to Major General George B. McClellan, the Union commander waging the Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capitol of Richmond. Jackson's strategy and ultimate victory in the valley quite possibly accounted for General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s later victory later in the Seven Days' Battles. By rapid movement of his First Division (his “Foot Cavalry”), Jackson engaged with several Federal units separately and defeated them. By the end of May he had attacked General Nathaniel P. Banks, driving him out of Winchester and the Valley, and back to the Potomac River (TL 6, pg. 120).

He then quickly moved to the southern end of the valley, defeating the Union at Cross Keys on June 8, then at Port Republic the following day. Lee then brought Jackson's troops by road and railroad to Richmond to attack the right flank of McClellan's army. But Jackson arrived a day late, possibly because of a lack of experience in large-scale action; despite this mild tarnish to his reputation, McClellan was beaten back severely and was ordered to evacuate the peninsula.

Federal forces then began regrouping under Major General John Pope when Lee joined Jackson near Manassas. The Second Battle of Bull Run commenced when Jackson was sent to attack the rear of Pope’s forces by a wide, encircling movement, decisively beating him. Lee then had taken his forces across the Potomac into Maryland, and to protect Richmond, Jackson was sent in mid-September to capture Harpers Ferry, which was carried out successfully, enabling him to return in time to rejoin Lee in Sharpsburg for the Battle of Antietam. Unfortunately, Lee lost that engagment and his forces had to journey back into Virginia.

Lee would regroup his forces, dividing it into two corps: Lieutenant General James Longstreet commanding one, and the newly-promoted Lieutenant General Stonewall Jackson the other. Taking his army to Fredericksburg, Virginia in December, Lee divided his forces against the Army of the Potomac under Major General Ambrose Burnside; Jackson took his corps around the Union left and utterly defeated Burnside’s rash attack.

===Chancellorsville===
While both armies were sitting on opposite sides of the Potomac, Burnside was replaced by Major General Joseph Hooker, who, in April, attempted to turn the Confederate position south of Washington along the Rappahannock River. It was there that the team of Lee and Jackson made their boldest move. Lee divided his army, leaving a small body to meet Federal troops on the Rappahannock. Lee then moved his main body, including Jackson's corps, to meet the threatened envelopment Hooker had planned in the woods near Chancellorsville. He again divided his army, keeping only 10,000 men to face Hooker directly, while the remainder was sent around Hooker’s right, and with it Jackson’s entire corps. The surprised Federals were routed by Jackson’s men, who suddenly appeared out of the woods by the thousands. Completely flanked by an army that numbered less than half of his own men, Hooker was forced to withdraw.

==Death==
[[Image:Cadets at Jackson Grave.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Cadets gathered around Jackson's grave at Virginia Military Institute, 1868.]]
That same evening, Jackson had ridden forward to reconnoiter enemy lines, and upon returning to his own lines he was accidentally shot by his own men. The wounds were serious, but not life-threatening; however his left arm was shattered and had to be amputated. In a small cabin at Guinea Station, Virginia, he was left to recuperate, but pneumonia had set in, and he died under a week later. His last words were what author James Robertson ascribed to pleasant images of his boyhood home at Jackson's Mill. "Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees" (Robertson, pg. 753).

==Assessment==
The aide to Jackson, Lieutenant Henry Kyd Douglas, once said of the general when he first laid eyes on him, "General Lee was the handsomest man I ever saw. John C. Brekinridge was a model of manly beauty, John B. Gordon a picture for the sculptor, and Joseph E. Johnston looked every inch a soldier. None of these things could be said of Jackson" (TL 6, pg. 18). Jackson, as it turned out, had surprised many. Of Lee’s lieutenants in battle, Jackson was considered his right arm and his most effective battlefield commander. The qualities of each man complimented the other, Jackson trusting Lee to the point of merely nodding his head in agreement with Lee’s plans before carrying them out. He was a master of surprise tactics and rapid movements, his own plans kept so secret that even his officers did not know of them until he was ready to make a strike. Despite this, and despite his many eccentricities, his own men completely trusted him and fought effectively under his command.

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 5 (''Decoying the Yanks''), Time Inc, New York (1984)
*Robertson, James I., Jr., ''Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend'', MacMillan, New York (1997)

==Further reading==
*Alexander, Bevin, ''Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson'', Hippocrene Books, New York (2004)
*Douglas S. Freeman|Freeman, Douglas S. ''Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command'' (3 volumes), Charles Scribners Sons, New York (1946).
*Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., ''Civil War High Commands'', Stanford University Press, CA (2001).
*Henderson, G. F. R., [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12233 ''Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War''], Smithmark reprint, (1995).

== External links==

*[http://www.vmi.edu/archives/jackson/jackson.html Virginia Military Institute's Jackson archive site]

Thomas J. Jackson

2007-07-02T11:42:11Z

Historiocality: /* Early military career */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:SWall.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Thomas Jonathan Jackson
Lieutenant General, CSA
|-
|Born
|January 21, 1824
|-
|Died
|May 10, 1863
|-
|}
'''Lieutenent General Thomas Jonathan Jackson''' was a United States Army officer who later joined the Confederate States Army and fought in the [[American Civil War]], where during the First Battle of Bull Run he earned his famous nickname '''"Stonewall"'''. His battlefield tactics and maneuvers are still studied as part of military curriculum.

==Early life==
He was born in Clarksburg, a mountain town in one of Virginia’s western counties, the son of a lawyer who got himself involved in a series of bad investments and dying of typhoid in 1826 when Thomas was two, leaving his family deep in debt. After their mother died five years later, Thomas, his brother Warren, and sister Laura, spent the remainder of their childhoods between several different relatives (TL 6, pg. 22).

It was during his childhood that Thomas developed a "quirky" personality. He complained of a stomach malady for which no doctor could find a cause. Later, while at West Point, he sat bolt upright in his seat, never allowing his spine to touch the back of his chair; the reason supposedly being that he needed to keep his internal organs in alignment, thus aiding digestion. He convinced himself that the use of pepper in his food made his left leg itch, and he was often seen sucking on lemons. When in battle his men, seeing his left arm raised, often assumed he was praying to his Maker; Thomas had a different explanation: his left arm was heavier than his right, and by lifting it “the blood might run back into his body and lighten it” (TL 6, pp. 23-24).

Despite having little in the way of a formal education while growing up (he had the equivalent of a fourth grade education), he received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1842. Although his start was slow, he made up for it by intense study, often reading his books by the dim light of the coal fire long after his classmates were asleep; he was able to significantly improve his class standing, and was 17th in his class of 59 by the time he graduated in 1846 (TL 6, pg. 25).

==Early military career==
[[Image:Young stonewall.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Jackson as he appeared in Mexico, 1847.]]
He joined his new regiment, the First Artillery, in Mexico, where the United States was engaged in war. He distinguished himself at Veracruz, serving with the most advanced batteries while constantly under Mexican fire, earning a promotion to first lieutenant for “gallant and meritorious conduct.” After the battle he learned that fellow officer John B. Magruder had been placed in command of a captured enemy battery, and was looking for officers. Believing that Magruder would soon be involved in battle, Jackson quickly joined him, and became involved in the thick of the fighting at Churubusco. By the time the war ended, he had attained the rank of brevet major, and was publicly praised by General Winfield Scott. It was in Mexico that Jackson learned qualities that he put to use later during the Civil War, abilities which helped to make him famous: resourcefulness, a clear mind when the enemy fire was at its hottest, and sheer bravery (TL 6, pg. 25).

Finding service in the peacetime army to be rather tedious, he resigned his commission in August 1851 and became a professor of artillery tactics and natural philosophy at the [[Virginia Military Institute]]. Though he worked hard at his new duties, he never became a popular or highly successful teacher. A stern man, his devotion to his cadets’ education coupled with his religious beliefs, earned him the derisive titles “Deacon Jackson,” “Old Jack,” and “Fool Tom” (TL 6, pg 29).

While at V.M.I. he met Elinor Junkin, daughter of the Reverend Dr. George Junkin, at the time the president of nearby Washington College. They were married on August 4, 1853, and the union was “a great source of happiness,” as Jackson would later write to his sister Laura. But it was short-lived. On October 22, 1852, Elinor died shortly after stillbirthing a son. Although he was unaffiliated with any denomination, he was a deeply religious man, and his religion gave him comfort. He wrote to Laura: “I am reconciled for my loss and have joy and hope of a future reunion where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.” In 1857, Jackson remarried to Mary Anna Morrison. Although they were deeply in love, she had cope with his strict regimen, which included early walks and punctual family prayers each morning. If one was late, Jackson would simply begin without him (TL 6, pp. 29-32).

==The Civil War==
The [[American Civil War]] began on April 12, 1861, and within days Jackson offered his services to Virginia; he was then ordered to bring his corps of cadets from V.M.I. to Richmond, where he was commissioned as a colonel in the state forces and charged with organizing volunteers into an effective fighting brigade. His first assignment was to fortify and defend Harper’s Ferry, and hold it if possible. This was the entry to the Shenandoah Valley, and soon Jackson would withdraw to the more defensible position at Winchester when General Joseph E. Johnston took over command of the Confederate forces in the valley.
[[Image:Stonewall 1862.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Jackson, 1862.]]
In July 1861 Federal forces moved south from Washington into Virginia, and Johnston moved south to unite with General P.G.T. Beauregard near Manassas to meet the advance of General Irvin McDowell's Federal army in what would become the First Battle of Bull Run. It was here that Jackson stationed his brigade in a strong defensive line, withholding the enemy against overwhelming odds; a nearby brigade commander, General Bernard Bee, would rally his own men by saying “There stands General Jackson like a stone wall,” thus earning for Jackson the sobriquet that would remain for the rest of his life.

By the spring of 1862 Jackson was again in the Shenandoah Valley, his diversionary tactics preventing reinforcements being sent to Major General George B. McClellan, the Union commander waging the Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capitol of Richmond. Jackson's strategy and ultimate victory in the valley quite possibly accounted for General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s later victory later in the Seven Days' Battles. By rapid movement of his First Division (his “Foot Cavalry”), Jackson engaged with several Federal units separately and defeated them. By the end of May he had attacked General Nathaniel P. Banks, driving him out of Winchester and the Valley, and back to the Potomac River (TL 6, pg. 120).

He then quickly moved to the southern end of the valley, defeating the Union at Cross Keys on June 8, then at Port Republic the following day. Lee then brought Jackson's troops by road and railroad to Richmond to attack the right flank of McClellan's army. But Jackson arrived a day late, possibly because of a lack of experience in large-scale action; despite this mild tarnish to his reputation, McClellan was beaten back severely and was ordered to evacuate the peninsula.

Federal forces then began regrouping under Major General John Pope when Lee joined Jackson near Manassas. The Second Battle of Bull Run commenced when Jackson was sent to attack the rear of Pope’s forces by a wide, encircling movement, decisively beating him. Lee then had taken his forces across the Potomac into Maryland, and to protect Richmond, Jackson was sent in mid-September to capture Harpers Ferry, which was carried out successfully, enabling him to return in time to rejoin Lee in Sharpsburg for the Battle of Antietam. Unfortunately, Lee lost that engagment and his forces had to journey back into Virginia.

Lee would regroup his forces, dividing it into two corps: Lieutenant General James Longstreet commanding one, and the newly-promoted Lieutenant General Stonewall Jackson the other. Taking his army to Fredericksburg, Virginia in December, Lee divided his forces against the Army of the Potomac under Major General Ambrose Burnside; Jackson took his corps around the Union left and utterly defeated Burnside’s rash attack.

===Chancellorsville===
While both armies were sitting on opposite sides of the Potomac, Burnside was replaced by Major General Joseph Hooker, who, in April, attempted to turn the Confederate position south of Washington along the Rappahannock River. It was there that the team of Lee and Jackson made their boldest move. Lee divided his army, leaving a small body to meet Federal troops on the Rappahannock. Lee then moved his main body, including Jackson's corps, to meet the threatened envelopment Hooker had planned in the woods near Chancellorsville. He again divided his army, keeping only 10,000 men to face Hooker directly, while the remainder was sent around Hooker’s right, and with it Jackson’s entire corps. The surprised Federals were routed by Jackson’s men, who suddenly appeared out of the woods by the thousands. Completely flanked by an army that numbered less than half of his own men, Hooker was forced to withdraw.

==Death==
[[Image:Cadets at Jackson Grave.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Cadets gathered around Jackson's grave at Virginia Military Institute, 1868.]]
That same evening, Jackson had ridden forward to reconnoiter enemy lines, and upon returning to his own lines he was accidentally shot by his own men. The wounds were serious, but not life-threatening; however his left arm was shattered and had to be amputated. In a small cabin at Guinea Station, Virginia, he was left to recuperate, but pneumonia had set in, and he died under a week later. His last words were what author James Robertson ascribed to pleasant images of his boyhood home at Jackson's Mill. "Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees" (Robertson, pg. 753).

==Assessment==
The aide to Jackson, Lieutenant Henry Kyd Douglas, once said of the general when he first laid eyes on him, "General Lee was the handsomest man I ever saw. John C. Brekinridge was a model of manly beauty, John B. Gordon a picture for the sculptor, and Joseph E. Johnston looked every inch a soldier. None of these things could be said of Jackson" (TL 6, pg. 18). Jackson, as it turned out, had surprised many. Of Lee’s lieutenants in battle, Jackson was considered his right arm and his most effective battlefield commander. The qualities of each man complimented the other, Jackson trusting Lee to the point of merely nodding his head in agreement with Lee’s plans before carrying them out. He was a master of surprise tactics and rapid movements, his own plans kept so secret that even his officers did not know of them until he was ready to make a strike. Despite this, and despite his many eccentricities, his own men completely trusted him and fought effectively under his command.

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 5 (''Decoying the Yanks''), Time Inc, New York (1984)
*Robertson, James I., Jr., ''Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend'', MacMillan, New York (1997)

==Further reading==
*Alexander, Bevin, ''Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson'', Hippocrene Books, New York (2004)
*Douglas S. Freeman|Freeman, Douglas S. ''Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command'' (3 volumes), Charles Scribners Sons, New York (1946).
*Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., ''Civil War High Commands'', Stanford University Press, CA (2001).
*Henderson, G. F. R., [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12233 ''Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War''], Smithmark reprint, (1995).

== External links==

*[http://www.vmi.edu/archives/jackson/jackson.html Virginia Military Institute's Jackson archive site]

Thomas J. Jackson

2007-07-02T11:36:47Z

Historiocality: /* Early military career */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:SWall.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Thomas Jonathan Jackson
Lieutenant General, CSA
|-
|Born
|January 21, 1824
|-
|Died
|May 10, 1863
|-
|}
'''Lieutenent General Thomas Jonathan Jackson''' was a United States Army officer who later joined the Confederate States Army and fought in the [[American Civil War]], where during the First Battle of Bull Run he earned his famous nickname '''"Stonewall"'''. His battlefield tactics and maneuvers are still studied as part of military curriculum.

==Early life==
He was born in Clarksburg, a mountain town in one of Virginia’s western counties, the son of a lawyer who got himself involved in a series of bad investments and dying of typhoid in 1826 when Thomas was two, leaving his family deep in debt. After their mother died five years later, Thomas, his brother Warren, and sister Laura, spent the remainder of their childhoods between several different relatives (TL 6, pg. 22).

It was during his childhood that Thomas developed a "quirky" personality. He complained of a stomach malady for which no doctor could find a cause. Later, while at West Point, he sat bolt upright in his seat, never allowing his spine to touch the back of his chair; the reason supposedly being that he needed to keep his internal organs in alignment, thus aiding digestion. He convinced himself that the use of pepper in his food made his left leg itch, and he was often seen sucking on lemons. When in battle his men, seeing his left arm raised, often assumed he was praying to his Maker; Thomas had a different explanation: his left arm was heavier than his right, and by lifting it “the blood might run back into his body and lighten it” (TL 6, pp. 23-24).

Despite having little in the way of a formal education while growing up (he had the equivalent of a fourth grade education), he received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1842. Although his start was slow, he made up for it by intense study, often reading his books by the dim light of the coal fire long after his classmates were asleep; he was able to significantly improve his class standing, and was 17th in his class of 59 by the time he graduated in 1846 (TL 6, pg. 25).

==Early military career==
[[Image:Young stonewall.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Jackson as he appeared in Mexico, 1847.]]
He joined his new regiment, the First Artillery, in Mexico, where the United States was engaged in war. He distinguished himself at Veracruz, serving with the most advanced batteries while constantly under Mexican fire, earning a promotion to first lieutenant for “gallant and meritorious conduct.” After the battle he learned that fellow officer John B. Magruder had been placed in command of a captured enemy battery, and was looking for officers. Believing that Magruder would soon be involved in battle, Jackson quickly joined him, and became involved in the thick of the fighting at Churubusco. He would leave the war as a brevet major, amid public praise by General Winfield Scott. It was in Mexico that Jackson learned qualities that he put to use later during the Civil War, abilities which helped to make him famous: resourcefulness, a clear mind when the enemy fire was at its hottest, and sheer bravery (TL 6, pg. 25).

Finding service in the peacetime army to be rather tedious, he resigned his commission in August 1851 and became a professor of artillery tactics and natural philosophy at the [[Virginia Military Institute]]. Though he worked hard at his new duties, he never became a popular or highly successful teacher. A stern man, his devotion to his cadets’ education coupled with his religious beliefs, earned him the derisive titles “Deacon Jackson,” “Old Jack,” and “Fool Tom” (TL 6, pg 29).

While at V.M.I. he met Elinor Junkin, daughter of the Reverend Dr. George Junkin, at the time the president of nearby Washington College. They were married on August 4, 1853, and the union was “a great source of happiness,” as Jackson would later write to his sister Laura. But it was short-lived. On October 22, 1852, Elinor died shortly after stillbirthing a son. Although he was unaffiliated with any denomination, he was a deeply religious man, and his religion gave him comfort. He wrote to Laura: “I am reconciled for my loss and have joy and hope of a future reunion where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.” In 1857, Jackson remarried to Mary Anna Morrison. Although they were deeply in love, she had cope with his strict regimen, which included early walks and punctual family prayers each morning. If one was late, Jackson would simply begin without him (TL 6, pp. 29-32).

==The Civil War==
The [[American Civil War]] began on April 12, 1861, and within days Jackson offered his services to Virginia; he was then ordered to bring his corps of cadets from V.M.I. to Richmond, where he was commissioned as a colonel in the state forces and charged with organizing volunteers into an effective fighting brigade. His first assignment was to fortify and defend Harper’s Ferry, and hold it if possible. This was the entry to the Shenandoah Valley, and soon Jackson would withdraw to the more defensible position at Winchester when General Joseph E. Johnston took over command of the Confederate forces in the valley.
[[Image:Stonewall 1862.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Jackson, 1862.]]
In July 1861 Federal forces moved south from Washington into Virginia, and Johnston moved south to unite with General P.G.T. Beauregard near Manassas to meet the advance of General Irvin McDowell's Federal army in what would become the First Battle of Bull Run. It was here that Jackson stationed his brigade in a strong defensive line, withholding the enemy against overwhelming odds; a nearby brigade commander, General Bernard Bee, would rally his own men by saying “There stands General Jackson like a stone wall,” thus earning for Jackson the sobriquet that would remain for the rest of his life.

By the spring of 1862 Jackson was again in the Shenandoah Valley, his diversionary tactics preventing reinforcements being sent to Major General George B. McClellan, the Union commander waging the Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capitol of Richmond. Jackson's strategy and ultimate victory in the valley quite possibly accounted for General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s later victory later in the Seven Days' Battles. By rapid movement of his First Division (his “Foot Cavalry”), Jackson engaged with several Federal units separately and defeated them. By the end of May he had attacked General Nathaniel P. Banks, driving him out of Winchester and the Valley, and back to the Potomac River (TL 6, pg. 120).

He then quickly moved to the southern end of the valley, defeating the Union at Cross Keys on June 8, then at Port Republic the following day. Lee then brought Jackson's troops by road and railroad to Richmond to attack the right flank of McClellan's army. But Jackson arrived a day late, possibly because of a lack of experience in large-scale action; despite this mild tarnish to his reputation, McClellan was beaten back severely and was ordered to evacuate the peninsula.

Federal forces then began regrouping under Major General John Pope when Lee joined Jackson near Manassas. The Second Battle of Bull Run commenced when Jackson was sent to attack the rear of Pope’s forces by a wide, encircling movement, decisively beating him. Lee then had taken his forces across the Potomac into Maryland, and to protect Richmond, Jackson was sent in mid-September to capture Harpers Ferry, which was carried out successfully, enabling him to return in time to rejoin Lee in Sharpsburg for the Battle of Antietam. Unfortunately, Lee lost that engagment and his forces had to journey back into Virginia.

Lee would regroup his forces, dividing it into two corps: Lieutenant General James Longstreet commanding one, and the newly-promoted Lieutenant General Stonewall Jackson the other. Taking his army to Fredericksburg, Virginia in December, Lee divided his forces against the Army of the Potomac under Major General Ambrose Burnside; Jackson took his corps around the Union left and utterly defeated Burnside’s rash attack.

===Chancellorsville===
While both armies were sitting on opposite sides of the Potomac, Burnside was replaced by Major General Joseph Hooker, who, in April, attempted to turn the Confederate position south of Washington along the Rappahannock River. It was there that the team of Lee and Jackson made their boldest move. Lee divided his army, leaving a small body to meet Federal troops on the Rappahannock. Lee then moved his main body, including Jackson's corps, to meet the threatened envelopment Hooker had planned in the woods near Chancellorsville. He again divided his army, keeping only 10,000 men to face Hooker directly, while the remainder was sent around Hooker’s right, and with it Jackson’s entire corps. The surprised Federals were routed by Jackson’s men, who suddenly appeared out of the woods by the thousands. Completely flanked by an army that numbered less than half of his own men, Hooker was forced to withdraw.

==Death==
[[Image:Cadets at Jackson Grave.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Cadets gathered around Jackson's grave at Virginia Military Institute, 1868.]]
That same evening, Jackson had ridden forward to reconnoiter enemy lines, and upon returning to his own lines he was accidentally shot by his own men. The wounds were serious, but not life-threatening; however his left arm was shattered and had to be amputated. In a small cabin at Guinea Station, Virginia, he was left to recuperate, but pneumonia had set in, and he died under a week later. His last words were what author James Robertson ascribed to pleasant images of his boyhood home at Jackson's Mill. "Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees" (Robertson, pg. 753).

==Assessment==
The aide to Jackson, Lieutenant Henry Kyd Douglas, once said of the general when he first laid eyes on him, "General Lee was the handsomest man I ever saw. John C. Brekinridge was a model of manly beauty, John B. Gordon a picture for the sculptor, and Joseph E. Johnston looked every inch a soldier. None of these things could be said of Jackson" (TL 6, pg. 18). Jackson, as it turned out, had surprised many. Of Lee’s lieutenants in battle, Jackson was considered his right arm and his most effective battlefield commander. The qualities of each man complimented the other, Jackson trusting Lee to the point of merely nodding his head in agreement with Lee’s plans before carrying them out. He was a master of surprise tactics and rapid movements, his own plans kept so secret that even his officers did not know of them until he was ready to make a strike. Despite this, and despite his many eccentricities, his own men completely trusted him and fought effectively under his command.

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 5 (''Decoying the Yanks''), Time Inc, New York (1984)
*Robertson, James I., Jr., ''Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend'', MacMillan, New York (1997)

==Further reading==
*Alexander, Bevin, ''Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson'', Hippocrene Books, New York (2004)
*Douglas S. Freeman|Freeman, Douglas S. ''Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command'' (3 volumes), Charles Scribners Sons, New York (1946).
*Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., ''Civil War High Commands'', Stanford University Press, CA (2001).
*Henderson, G. F. R., [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12233 ''Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War''], Smithmark reprint, (1995).

== External links==

*[http://www.vmi.edu/archives/jackson/jackson.html Virginia Military Institute's Jackson archive site]

Thomas J. Jackson

2007-07-01T22:03:20Z

Historiocality: /* Early life */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:SWall.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Thomas Jonathan Jackson
Lieutenant General, CSA
|-
|Born
|January 21, 1824
|-
|Died
|May 10, 1863
|-
|}
'''Lieutenent General Thomas Jonathan Jackson''' was a United States Army officer who later joined the Confederate States Army and fought in the [[American Civil War]], where during the First Battle of Bull Run he earned his famous nickname '''"Stonewall"'''. His battlefield tactics and maneuvers are still studied as part of military curriculum.

==Early life==
He was born in Clarksburg, a mountain town in one of Virginia’s western counties, the son of a lawyer who got himself involved in a series of bad investments and dying of typhoid in 1826 when Thomas was two, leaving his family deep in debt. After their mother died five years later, Thomas, his brother Warren, and sister Laura, spent the remainder of their childhoods between several different relatives (TL 6, pg. 22).

It was during his childhood that Thomas developed a "quirky" personality. He complained of a stomach malady for which no doctor could find a cause. Later, while at West Point, he sat bolt upright in his seat, never allowing his spine to touch the back of his chair; the reason supposedly being that he needed to keep his internal organs in alignment, thus aiding digestion. He convinced himself that the use of pepper in his food made his left leg itch, and he was often seen sucking on lemons. When in battle his men, seeing his left arm raised, often assumed he was praying to his Maker; Thomas had a different explanation: his left arm was heavier than his right, and by lifting it “the blood might run back into his body and lighten it” (TL 6, pp. 23-24).

Despite having little in the way of a formal education while growing up (he had the equivalent of a fourth grade education), he received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1842. Although his start was slow, he made up for it by intense study, often reading his books by the dim light of the coal fire long after his classmates were asleep; he was able to significantly improve his class standing, and was 17th in his class of 59 by the time he graduated in 1846 (TL 6, pg. 25).

==Early military career==
[[Image:Young stonewall.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Jackson as he appeared in Mexico, 1847.]]
He joined his new regiment, the First Artillery, in Mexico, where the United States was engaged in war. Here he would distinguish himself at Veracruz, serving with the most advanced batteries while constantly under Mexican fire; he would earn promotion to first lieutenant for “gallant and meritorious conduct.” Then he had heard that fellow officer John B. Magruder was in command of a captured enemy battery, and was looking for officers. Knowing Magruder would soon be involved in battle, Jackson pushed to join him, and became involved in the thick of the fighting at Churubusco. He would leave the war as a brevet major, amid public praise by General Winfield Scott. It was in Mexico that Jackson learned qualities that he would take advantage of in the coming Civil War, abilities which would help make him famous: resourcefulness, a clear mind when the enemy fire was at its hottest, and sheer bravery (TL 6, pg. 25).

His peacetime service in the army rather tedious, he resigned his commission in August 1851 and became a professor of artillery tactics and natural philosophy at the Virginia Military Institute. Though he worked hard at his new duties, he never became a popular or highly successful teacher. A stern man, his devotion to his cadets’ education coupled with his religious beliefs, earned him the derisive titles “Deacon Jackson,” “Old Jack,” and “Fool Tom” (TL 6, pg 29).

V.M.I. also offered him the opportunity to meet, and marry, Elinor Junkin, daughter of the Reverend Dr. George Junkin, at the time the president of nearby Washington College. The marriage took place on August 4, 1853, and the union was “a great source of happiness,” as Jackson would write to his sister; indeed, the Jacksons were already expecting their first child. Fourteen months after the marriage Jackson would bury his wife, along with her stillborn child. Despite never belonging to a church, he was a deeply religious man, and his religion gave him comfort. He wrote to Laura “I am reconciled for my loss and have joy and hope of a future reunion where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest” Jackson would remarry by 1857, the new bride being Mary Anna Morrison; although they were deeply in love, she had to put up with his strict regimen, which included early morning walks and morning family prayers on time; if one was late, Jackson would simply begin without him (TL 6, pp. 29-32).

==The Civil War==
The [[American Civil War]] began on April 12, 1861, and within days Jackson offered his services to Virginia; he was then ordered to bring his corps of cadets from V.M.I. to Richmond, where he was commissioned as a colonel in the state forces and charged with organizing volunteers into an effective fighting brigade. His first assignment was to fortify and defend Harper’s Ferry, and hold it if possible. This was the entry to the Shenandoah Valley, and soon Jackson would withdraw to the more defensible position at Winchester when General Joseph E. Johnston took over command of the Confederate forces in the valley.
[[Image:Stonewall 1862.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Jackson, 1862.]]
In July 1861 Federal forces moved south from Washington into Virginia, and Johnston moved south to unite with General P.G.T. Beauregard near Manassas to meet the advance of General Irvin McDowell's Federal army in what would become the First Battle of Bull Run. It was here that Jackson stationed his brigade in a strong defensive line, withholding the enemy against overwhelming odds; a nearby brigade commander, General Bernard Bee, would rally his own men by saying “There stands General Jackson like a stone wall,” thus earning for Jackson the sobriquet that would remain for the rest of his life.

By the spring of 1862 Jackson was again in the Shenandoah Valley, his diversionary tactics preventing reinforcements being sent to Major General George B. McClellan, the Union commander waging the Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capitol of Richmond. Jackson's strategy and ultimate victory in the valley quite possibly accounted for General [[Robert E. Lee]]'s later victory later in the Seven Days' Battles. By rapid movement of his First Division (his “Foot Cavalry”), Jackson engaged with several Federal units separately and defeated them. By the end of May he had attacked General Nathaniel P. Banks, driving him out of Winchester and the Valley, and back to the Potomac River (TL 6, pg. 120).

He then quickly moved to the southern end of the valley, defeating the Union at Cross Keys on June 8, then at Port Republic the following day. Lee then brought Jackson's troops by road and railroad to Richmond to attack the right flank of McClellan's army. But Jackson arrived a day late, possibly because of a lack of experience in large-scale action; despite this mild tarnish to his reputation, McClellan was beaten back severely and was ordered to evacuate the peninsula.

Federal forces then began regrouping under Major General John Pope when Lee joined Jackson near Manassas. The Second Battle of Bull Run commenced when Jackson was sent to attack the rear of Pope’s forces by a wide, encircling movement, decisively beating him. Lee then had taken his forces across the Potomac into Maryland, and to protect Richmond, Jackson was sent in mid-September to capture Harpers Ferry, which was carried out successfully, enabling him to return in time to rejoin Lee in Sharpsburg for the Battle of Antietam. Unfortunately, Lee lost that engagment and his forces had to journey back into Virginia.

Lee would regroup his forces, dividing it into two corps: Lieutenant General James Longstreet commanding one, and the newly-promoted Lieutenant General Stonewall Jackson the other. Taking his army to Fredericksburg, Virginia in December, Lee divided his forces against the Army of the Potomac under Major General Ambrose Burnside; Jackson took his corps around the Union left and utterly defeated Burnside’s rash attack.

===Chancellorsville===
While both armies were sitting on opposite sides of the Potomac, Burnside was replaced by Major General Joseph Hooker, who, in April, attempted to turn the Confederate position south of Washington along the Rappahannock River. It was there that the team of Lee and Jackson made their boldest move. Lee divided his army, leaving a small body to meet Federal troops on the Rappahannock. Lee then moved his main body, including Jackson's corps, to meet the threatened envelopment Hooker had planned in the woods near Chancellorsville. He again divided his army, keeping only 10,000 men to face Hooker directly, while the remainder was sent around Hooker’s right, and with it Jackson’s entire corps. The surprised Federals were routed by Jackson’s men, who suddenly appeared out of the woods by the thousands. Completely flanked by an army that numbered less than half of his own men, Hooker was forced to withdraw.

==Death==
[[Image:Cadets at Jackson Grave.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Cadets gathered around Jackson's grave at Virginia Military Institute, 1868.]]
That same evening, Jackson had ridden forward to reconnoiter enemy lines, and upon returning to his own lines he was accidentally shot by his own men. The wounds were serious, but not life-threatening; however his left arm was shattered and had to be amputated. In a small cabin at Guinea Station, Virginia, he was left to recuperate, but pneumonia had set in, and he died under a week later. His last words were what author James Robertson ascribed to pleasant images of his boyhood home at Jackson's Mill. "Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees" (Robertson, pg. 753).

==Assessment==
The aide to Jackson, Lieutenant Henry Kyd Douglas, once said of the general when he first laid eyes on him, "General Lee was the handsomest man I ever saw. John C. Brekinridge was a model of manly beauty, John B. Gordon a picture for the sculptor, and Joseph E. Johnston looked every inch a soldier. None of these things could be said of Jackson" (TL 6, pg. 18). Jackson, as it turned out, had surprised many. Of Lee’s lieutenants in battle, Jackson was considered his right arm and his most effective battlefield commander. The qualities of each man complimented the other, Jackson trusting Lee to the point of merely nodding his head in agreement with Lee’s plans before carrying them out. He was a master of surprise tactics and rapid movements, his own plans kept so secret that even his officers did not know of them until he was ready to make a strike. Despite this, and despite his many eccentricities, his own men completely trusted him and fought effectively under his command.

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 5 (''Decoying the Yanks''), Time Inc, New York (1984)
*Robertson, James I., Jr., ''Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend'', MacMillan, New York (1997)

==Further reading==
*Alexander, Bevin, ''Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson'', Hippocrene Books, New York (2004)
*Douglas S. Freeman|Freeman, Douglas S. ''Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command'' (3 volumes), Charles Scribners Sons, New York (1946).
*Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., ''Civil War High Commands'', Stanford University Press, CA (2001).
*Henderson, G. F. R., [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12233 ''Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War''], Smithmark reprint, (1995).

== External links==

*[http://www.vmi.edu/archives/jackson/jackson.html Virginia Military Institute's Jackson archive site]

Talk:Homophobia

2007-07-01T21:18:57Z

Historiocality: /* Homophilia */

{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}
Archive(s):
[[/archive 1|01]]
[[/archive 2|02]]

== Anti-homosexual violence ==

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. ''
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias. Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics. (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.) I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't. Or perhaps it's something else? I really don't understand what this section is trying to say. [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?

''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women. They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant? And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't? Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?

''Violent crimes are defined as murder...<snip>...and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons <ref>U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]</ref> or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. </ref>''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right? If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias. So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an "anti-homosexual murder" in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics. Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there. Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a "victim class"; then it only defines "offenders" by race. A classic example of "mixing apples and oranges", as defined by law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article. I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version. Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).

:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do. I would like to understand your point of view here. I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc. Do you have a different understanding of these crimes? Can you give a hypothetical example? I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here. The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made. I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included. I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics. Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:

''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> I'm OK with this sentence. (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.) However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias. If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.) Thus I would add this reference <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm] ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''</ref>

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...'' Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.

''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.'' I'm still not sure I understand your point here. The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims. Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''. In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay. However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is. The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them. I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes. Thus I would add this footnote. <ref>''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' </ref>

''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement. However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.'' I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case. There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics. (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)

''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004. It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals. (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.) So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''. I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders. By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation. (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.) In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005. Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes. I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''</ref>

So the whole thing would read:

:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref><ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm] ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''</ref> ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.'' <ref>''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' </ref> ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias. In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''</ref>

[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.

:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda. Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen. You will see this Conservapedia. Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders. Our mission is quite the contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it. FBI statistics report based on bias. Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual. A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included. You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed. Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''
:Wrong. Flawed. A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law. And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.'' If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed. From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime. The report explains "The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime."<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]</ref> How do you think this happens? Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes? Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this? Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
<--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer. He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race. Therein lies the statistical flaw.

And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships? If we are to contemplate things such as so-called "gay marriage", then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships. And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.

Thirdly, ''"it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported"''. It makes no difference what the FBI's "intent" is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting. Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals. Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported "hate crimes" are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes. Do I have this right? This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point. If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless. Or are you making a more nuanced argument? Something like "police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)". Am I getting closer to understanding you? Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.

::Now, let's marry two threads here. There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, "homophobes" who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual. It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships. Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle. None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they "hate crime" stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point. You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays. I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all. I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective. I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph. Can you find some references that will allow us to say "some conservatives are concerned that", or "Such and such author has put forth the idea that" or whatever? Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references. I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==

<references/>

== "most common usage" ==

:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.

I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term. Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term. And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves. In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::And the citable '''source''' that supports "criticism of people opposed to homosexuality" as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

=="Homophobia-phobia"==
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Homophobia-phobia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

===Homophobia-Phobia===
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.

===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===

A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.

::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

===Homophilia===
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of "Homophobia." "homo" + "phobia" = "homophobia." Since "Philia" is the literal and exact opposite of "Phobia" it should therefore follow that: "Homo" + "Philia" = "Homophilia." If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please. Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>homophilia:
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex. [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]
</blockquote>
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homophobia

2007-07-01T21:15:35Z

Historiocality: /* Homophilia */

Talk:Homophobia

2007-07-01T21:07:20Z

Historiocality: /* Homophobiaphobiaphobia */

Homophobia

2007-07-01T20:55:44Z

Historiocality: /* See also */

'''Homophobia''' is, literally, "fear of homosexuality." Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to [[homosexuality]].

Homophobia is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] term originally intended to portray principled opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition. It was introduced into scientific literature shortly before the American Psychiatric Association declassified its diagnosis of [[homosexuality]] as a [[mental illness]] in 1973. A 2002 research study by the [[University of Arkansas]] Department of Psychology, however, claimed that among non-homosexual homophobes no phobia exists.<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/index.htmNew Study Says There’s No Phobia in ‘Homophobia’], Martha Kleder, CWA, 6/28/2002.</ref> Most homophobes are homosexual who suffer from "internalized homophobia". The is no agreement within the psychiatric and therapeutic professions on what the term actually means.

According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if he so desires. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref>Ibid</ref>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General to collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. In 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities. <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005: About Hate Crime[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/abouthc.htm]</ref>

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homophilia]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]

== References ==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?

2007-06-29T22:04:11Z

Historiocality: /* Comment */

{{debate}}

== Yes ==

Yes! We don't realize what is at stake with this battle. '''If American soldiers can be forced to serve a foreign military against their will, then we are not a free country.''' Michael New joined the Army to fight for America, not to further a third-parties goals for world peace. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:41, 12 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' As a member of the US Armed Forces he '''''was''''' (would have been) fighting for America. Just because in this case America was working together with other nations does not change that fact. A soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty. He signed up to fight as a soldier for America '''''wherever''''' America wanted him to go. If you think that he has a right to choose where he fights, then you have to defend any soldier who does not like following orders and fighting where he is told to fight. Also It was not "third parties goals" because America is part of the UN they have to do their part in the UN peacekeeping forces, as much as i hate the UN does not change that fact. If America tells him to fight for the UN then that is his duty '''''to America'''''. Even though American forces fighting in Vietnam and Korea were not directly fighting to defend America, they were still fighting for America. it is the same concept here.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
*'''Reply''' So if the United States told Michael New to go and exterminate two million black people, as you say, "a soldier in the military does not have the right to choose his duty." Therefore, Michael New would have to go and kill two million people.

*'''Reply''' Military law has very clear rules about what constitutes a lawful order. An order to commit genocide would be unlawful, and therefore a serviceman is not only not obliged to follow it, but would be obliged to object. This is the basis upon which Nazi war criminals were found guilty of crimes they committed while under orders from their superiors.
An order to serve on a UN mission would be issued through the correct chain of command and would be lawful. A soldier would have no legal basis to object.
I personally believe (as an ex-servicman) that any military personnel refusing a lawful order for political reasons should be punished severely. If we allow our military to become politicised we weaken democracy.

'''Comment:''' This argument regarding black people is terrible straw man fallacy; anyone can see that killing two million people is nothing like wearing UN uniform.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:Therefore, you are correct. It's a very serious issue to become a "GI" (Government Issue) because you are giving up your right to decide what's best, even on a moral issue. Should your commander-in-chief assign you a mission that is morally questionable, you must obey or become derelict in your duty and suffer the consequences of a court marshal. Great thought has to be given when one is considering giving allegiance to any government that requires an unconditional allegiance to it causes, including wars and enforcing its policies, whether you agree with them or not. (These last thoughts were derived by input from my father) -- [[User:DeborahB.|~DeborahB~]]
*'''Reply:''' I agree with this. The arguments that I made above were mainly aimed at the laws that allow the US to force someone to serve the UN. Obviously, if you join the military you have to obey your commanding officers. For this reason you better be positive you're ready to do anything the military says before you sign up. When Hitler's soldiers were put on trial at the end of the war they claimed that they were "just obeying orders." Hopefully America's government will remain moral enough so as not to scare any moral people from signing up. Joining the UN was a step in the wrong direction. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:01, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' Again, no-one is 'forced' to 'serve the UN'. Nations decide whether or not to participate in UN actions, and it is those nations that 'force' their military personnel to deploy. The remark about Hitler's soldiers is a fallacy; the Nuremburg trials made it very clear that 'I was just following orders' is not acceptable as a defense when it comes to certain crimes, known these days as crimes against humanity. And America didn't take a step in the wrong direction by 'joining the UN'; it was one of the the driving forces behind the creation of the UN, and one of its founding member nations. Check it out: http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/ [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 13:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
**'''Reply''' We have to seperate the moral argument from the constitutional argument for a second here. You are correct that under the constitution if Michael New was ordered to kill 2 million black people (why are you dragging racism into this debate?) then he would have to obey. The Bible Tells us to obey those in authority over us, unless they are telling us to do something morally wrong. that is the difference. In the example you gave, Michael New's Moral obligation would be to refuse to kill the people, and take his dishonorable discharge. In the UN case, obeying his superiors would not be morally wrong. Therefore, disobeying was wrong both constitutionally and morally. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:30, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply''' Wrong. Under the UCMJ, no member of the armed forces is required to obey a patently illegal order - such as, for example, the disingenuous example above, of being ordered to kill two million black people. However, there is nothing illegal in the '''American''' government ordering an '''American serviceman''' to serve under American officers in a unit to be employed in a UN operation. Bear in mind the UN has no power to compel its member nations to participate in any UN intervention, so when American units participate in such, it is with the full knowledge and blessing of the government. Furthermore, the government at no time surrenders control of those personnel to the UN; if the mandate for the UN operation in question should change - or even if it doesn't but the government no longer wishes to support the mandate - then the government withdraws its troops. It's as simple as that. Likewise the American government and military are perfectly within their rights to order their servicemen and women to wear whatever insignia they deem suitable to the taskings at hand. If a unit is deploying in support of a UN operation and that unit's personnel are required to wear the UN-blue helmet and shoulder patch, then that's the ordered uniform. So Michael New knowingly disobeyed a lawful command from his superiors.
::Bye the bye, there seems to be a notion that American servicemen and women cannot be required to serve under foreign command. That's a crock; there are American servicemen on exchange with other nations all the time, and while they are working with those other nations, their duties are prescribed by that nation, and they can be subject to that nation's military regulations as well as the UCMJ. Of course, foreign military personnel working in the US can likewise be subject to the UCMJ as well as their own national military regs. What American servicemen and women cannot be required to do, either by the American government or a foreign government, is to surrender their connection to the chain of command - short, that is, of being released from their service. Of course, this same right obtains with foreign military and their governments as well - the US government cannot require a British officer on exchange in the States to act against his oath to the Queen, for instance. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::('''Note''' - edited very slightly to change the indents, as I realized that it looked as though I was disagreeing with [[User:TimSvendsen]], when actually I was disagreeing with [[User:PhilipB]]. My bad.) [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 21:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes he was, and I'll prove it. In class yesterday, I was trying to make the argument that some of Michael New's rights as a citizen of the United States might be compromised if he were forced to join the United Nations. While that is true, as shown in article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations itself is what really condemns the action:

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The United Nations could not even accept him into the Peacekeeping Corps. if he objected.

[[User:David R|David R]]

* '''Reply''' Even if the UN could not force him to fight, (which is debatable) America still could. America does not have to follow UN policy. Michael New was subject to the US Military and they told him to. He does not have the right to refuse.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:46, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:Excellent point, David! I may be able to use your point in a law brief to the Supreme Court. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Do you think that the Supreme court will accept an argument based on the UN declaration of human rights in any case, especially a case involving an American soldier disobeying orders under American law? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 15 January 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Nobody is being deprived of their nationaliy, the United Nations included America. Since New was an American soldier he was obligated to serve his commanders unless they were violating the constitution. I don't think having to wear a special uniform that shows your nation is part of the United Nations is aginst the constitution.

Double Edge

'''Comment on the Constitution:'''

Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' So you're saying that, as long as you are getting paid, you should do anything for the US Military, even if it wasn't in the original job description? OK, Ben, I know how much you like straw men, so I will give you a situation that is a little more reasonable. Say you were my personal assistant for a week...I am paying you very well - $5000 for the whole week. I tell you to water the garden, vaccuum the house, and take out the trash. Its halfway through the week and everything is going great. But then I tell you to go help my next door neighbor out. You and I are best-friends, but you don't know this guy. You soon learn that he is a very different boss: he yells at you a lot and makes you do the chores you hate to do. You complain to me that this isn't what you signed up for. But what can I do? You told me that, for $5000, you would do anything for me - I needed you to help out my neighbor. Not my problem. I thouroughly enjoyed narrating this story for you, and I will be shocked if you call this a straw man. This story is very similar to what is happening to Michael New, and probably a notch lower than being forced into a foreign military, don't you think? [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' Yes, that is indeed the case - with the proviso that members of the armed forces cannot be required to obey illegal orders (see above for the specious instance of being ordered to commit mass murder). Other than that - if you're in the military and you're given duties you didn't think you might be given, well that's a shame, but there it is. That's part of the bargain every soldier, sailor, airman and marine makes when they sign on the dotted line. Lots of kids in boot don't think they'll have to do KP or clean toilets, but it's part and parcel of military duties. There was some furor a while ago over soldiers defecting to Canada (shades of Vietnam!) because they didn't think they'd ever have to go overseas and/or go into combat. Guess what - they're wrong. Don't get me started on how is it possible for a kid to grow up in America and NOT realize that the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force may mean leaving home and being shot at. That's a rant for a different day and venue. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Addendum''' - BTW, Mr. New was NOT being 'forced into a foreign military'; the UN does not maintain armed forces of its own. He was told off to participate, as a member of his unit, an American military unit, in a UN operation '''supported and endorsed by the government of the United States.''' Whether nor not the US should have been involved in that is not for him to decide, other than as a voter at the polls. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Above is the oath that Michael New and all military personnel take when enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. It is innaccurate to say that a soldier is bound to obey any and every order given by a superior- note that allegiance to the Constitution precedes obedience to superior officers, and even such obedience is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For example, if a president attempted to use his power as Commander-in-Chief to usurp the power of the legislative and judiciary branches in a military coup, it would be the duty of a soldier to resist the orders of the President in order to defend the Constitution.

With that said, I do not belive that Michael New had the right to disobey orders in this case. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" New's unit was detached to a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to a treaty made under the authority of the United states. As Tim pointed out, His situation was essentially simailar to that of other American soldiers acting in multilateral coalitions, as in World War's I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq. A UN beret was simply an identifier to facilitate cooperation among the troops of different nationalities in a diverse peacekeeping force. By disobeying his orders, New was acting not only against his superior officers but against the United States Constitution.

As a patriotic, conservative American, it is painful to argue in favor of the UN and against a brave and patriotic American soldier. As a matter of policy, I do not believe the USA should be affiliated with the UN. However, we must accept that in a free and representative government, not every decision will accord with our wishes. If we want our political opponents to respect the Constitution, we must respect it ourselves.

Chris J.

== Comment ==

It's also worth noting that the question itself is somewhat misleading. There is no 'UN uniform'. There are UN-pattern kit items which are nationally issued, such as badges, UN-blue berets, helmets, etc. They are supplied by the member nations to conform to their own military kit; thus, American soldiers use American helmets either painted UN blue or with a UN blue liner. Similarly, British soldiers use British kit, Canadians use Canadian kit, etc., etc. It has to be this way as the UN has no authority to issue uniform items to the military personnel of member nations. Just thought I'd correct the misapprehension. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 21:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

To all of you patriotic conservative Christian Americans, I have a very important point to make, so pay very close attention. If, as you allege, God created man in his image, this includes all men (and women, who we all know were created from and are lesser than men). Despite a particular culture's refusal to accept our one true God, and his son as our Saviour, he is no less the God of all. Should not your allegiance be to your one true God, and not to some arbitrary assimilation of people? God supersedes your constitution, and the United Nations seeks to unite all that are God's people. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. According to the UN charter the purpose of the UN is:
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime
has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from
treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed
force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement
of all peoples..."[http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]

Nowhere in this is any mention made of God, or any "gods of this world", including but not limited to allah, shivna, jupiter, buddha, etc. In any case, from the same argument, what of those who aren't God's people? To be God's people necesitates actually following the principles of God (see 1 Cor 11:1, Eph 5), which drastically cuts the number of people who make claims to said status that may actually be included in said group (see Matt 7:21-23).
But anyone who claims to converse with the Almighty for the sake of political and worldly power is highly suspect.

More onto topic. To wear the badge or symbol of a group, individual, or nation is to show allegiance to said party. To wear the badge or symbol of a foreign power (e.g. anyone other than the United States of America) is to show allegiance to said foreign power and thus don its uniform also. Soldiers cannot serve two masters as this is treason. Either they serve the UN or they serve the USA. They are not the same. Nor can one subordinate one duty to another.

In the matter of oaths and treaties. If an attempt is made by a president to conclude a treaty which subordinates the US constitution as a whole to a higher level of government such as is being hammered out in the form of a North American Union (Security and Prosperity Partnershiphttp [http://www.spp.gov/]) he would be guilty of blatent and open TREASON. If a treaty is treasonous then it's void. The order oaths are taken in are important. The constitional oath is first and the presidential oath comes later. If the president orders the military to violate the constition then the oath to the president is void as he is guilty of treason.
Too few politicians are held to their oaths of office anymore and the whole procedure has turned into basically a mere formality to be ignored immediatly after assuming office. Left, right, middle... it matters not. Its best described by a famous man who said if you put all the politicians into a sack and shake it up then pull two out randomly "there ain't a dime's worth a' diference!" But despite all claims to the contrary the oath of loyalty is taken, in all practicality, to the government paycheck. A standing army is a mercenary (a.k.a. someone who fights for money) type of army. Hence it's inherent danger to a free society. Read up on the decline of the Roman Republic to learn more.

What if their was a number of natural disasters of huge proportions to strike the USA in a short period of time which became coupled with popular unrest as a result of a seemingly increasingly detached political elite. How many Americans would willingly accept "peacekeeping missions" by UN "peacekeepers" from foreign nations. Rather far fetched, admitedly, but something to think about.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 18:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-06-29T19:06:09Z

Historiocality: /* Present-day Baghdad? */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)